Apple Store Employees Soak Up the Atmosphere, But Not Much Cash

raque writes "The NYTimes is reporting on just how badly Apple Retail employees are being paid. Apple is exploiting its fan base for cheap labor. This is one reason I don't go to Apple Stores if I can avoid it. Stores like NY's Tekserve offer a great shopping experience without so exploiting their workers." Would you rather start at an Apple store for $11.91 an hour (average starting base pay, according to the linked article) and an employee discount, or at Tiffany for $15.60?

Comments

That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife works at an Apple store and pulls in $29.15 an hour working the genius bar. Which means that she would have been able to qualify for the mortgage we took out three months ago just on her salary. The 25% employee discount is nice also.

Methinks the poster has an axe to grind with his inflamatory language.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

All tech companies have high margins. A lot of the costs is R&D, so the manufacture price is a lot lower than the retail price.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The margins on almost every PC manufacturer are razor thin. That may change with the advent of Ultrabooks, but only for a short time.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[ThatsMyNick]

So how many employees usually last beyond the first few months? Or in other words, what the ratio of new employees to well established employees be, at any point of time, in the store?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[D'Sphitz]

Even for the non-genius bar employees, is $11.91/hour starting pay for retail supposed to be shocking or what? I worked many jobs just out of high school in the 90's for $5/hour, it's been a long time since I was paid hourly but am I really that disconnected that I think 12 bucks an hour seems fair?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Yosho-sama]

Your comment is based on your lack of understanding about how badly the dollar has devalued. $12/hour isn't a living wage in a lot of places.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[D'Sphitz]

A quick google shows fast food starting pay is right around $8/hour, retail at $9/hour, so I'm having trouble generating any outrage over Apple paying $12/hour.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MacTO]

In a lot of respects, I agree with that assessment. Yet I'd add a caveat: the value of an employee depends upon how much they contribute to the company's bottom line. This favours Apple employees: fast food involves a lot of labour for a low cost product.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

... (S)He did not make that up...

In public policy, a living wage is the minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime). These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define "living wage" as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four.

The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements of a living wage - or is so low that borrowing or application for top-up benefits is necessary. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

The ILO uses various criteria to recommend minimum wage levels: the needs of workers and their families, the general level of wages in a county, the cost of living, social security benefits, the relative living standards of social groups and economic factors such as economic development and employment maintenance. The living wage focuses more on the needs of worker units, social security benefits and cost of living.

Living wage and minimum wage are two different things. Living wage is defined by the wage that needs to be met that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe decent standard of living the their community and have the ability to save for future needs and goals.[1] To meet living wage people need to make about $12.50 an hour. Currently the minimum wage across the US is $7.25, which is well below living wage. In 1990 the first living wage campaigns were launched by community initiatives in US addressing increasing poverty faced by workers and their families. They argued that employee, employer, and the community win with a living wage. Employees would be more will work helping the employer reduce worker turnover ratio and it would help the community when the citizens have enough to have a decent life.[2]

Poverty threshold is the income necessary for a household to be able to consume a low cost, nutritious diet and purchase non-food necessities in a given country. Poverty lines and living wages are measured differently. Poverty lines are measured by household units and living wage is based on individual workers.

A related concept is that of a family wage – one sufficient to not only support oneself, but also to raise a family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

I admit, I'm a bit of an Apple hater sometimes. It's their attitude, towards thinking they own basic concepts, but I digress. I did a quick check to see what competing retailers are paying.

Best Buy sales associate $9.70: http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Best-Buy-Hourly-Pay-E97.htm
Fry's Electronics sales associate $9.19: http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Fry-s-Electronics-Hourly-Pay-E3186.htm

They are paying more than the going rate it seems. Though I'm sure it's worth it if your are trying to fill your store with hipsters that the apple fans can look up to as the apostles of apple...

Anyway, for me this story is doesn't seem to have any basis that I can clearly see.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[geoskd]

I admit, I'm a bit of an Apple hater sometimes. It's their attitude, towards thinking they own basic concepts, but I digress. I did a quick check to see what competing retailers are paying.

Best Buy sales associate $9.70: http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Best-Buy-Hourly-Pay-E97.htm Fry's Electronics sales associate $9.19: http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Fry-s-Electronics-Hourly-Pay-E3186.htm

Not in New York City they're not, and that is what the New York Times is talking about. Yes, Much of the country starts people at ~$9 / hr, but in NYC, $9 / hr is starvation wage. $12 / hr will pay for food and possibly rent, but thats about it. Glassdoor uses the nationwide numbers, and the number of retails sales people in rural areas far outweighs the numbers in the major metropolitan areas. That is why the major met areas pay more, because each individual sales person does more volume by virtue of being in a target rich environment.

-=Geoskd

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[superdave80]

Not in New York City they're not, and that is what the New York Times is talking about.

And we all know that New York City is the only place in America that matters. New York is expensive to live in. Why is this news?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Clock Nova]

Maybe that's because most PC manufacturers use Apple as an R&D department.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[jedidiah]

Well. It all depends. It all depends on whether or not you buy into all of the propaganda fanboys like to spout about their brand being like BMW.

That is why the comparison was being drawn with Tiffany and not Walmart.

If Apple is really like GM or Walmart, then the crap pay is not really out of place.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Sir_Sri]

actually it's a fairly good description of the process you would use to determine the lowest possible wage someone can be self sustaining on. That's a useful metric for governments when setting minimum wages, and for employers looking to hire people who are just barely at that level.

That doesn't necessarily apply to Apple stores though, nor is starting salary reflective of average salary, or salary after a year or the like.

If (for sake of argument) the living wage was 20 dollars an hour, and you were paying 10, then you were clearly telling future employees that this isn't a job where you're expected to be independent at early on. You're looking to hire students mostly, or people otherwise fresh out of school looking for whatever until they get something better.

Now as someone above said, the genius bar gig paying 29 an hour is a big step up from a living wage. But your average teller monkey can't do genius bar level work, that might be a training gap, that might be experience, and it might be that training gets you into the genius bar, and then experience will promote you up to that point.

But calculations like living wage are really important. They tell both the government and employers what lifestyle their employees will be in. 24k a year before taxes doesn't get you a whole lot, but what it does get you depends a lot on where you live. Where I am 24K/year would get you your own apartment, public transit to work, and food. You'd really struggle to have enough money to go to school additionally or that sort of thing (car for example), but you at least wouldn't starve to death and could afford internet access to troll /.. You'd just have to have a way out already, because 12 bucks an hour might trap you at equivalent to that rate for life.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

"In public policy, a living wage is the minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime). These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)

A living wage is the minimum amount that someone needs to live on and not be a high risk of financial catastrophe, ether by foreseen events (day to day bills) or unforeseen (medical bill related to things like appendicitis). In most place 12$/h is not enough (12$/h = 25k$/y). While it is certainly better then minimum wage, it's not better then what many people could be doing else where (that includes young people in there early 20's.

Ignoring that tangent, this story is mostly about how Apple (who sells high priced luxury goods) is not adequately paying it's sales and support staff when compared to other companies. Also how Apple's management generally doesn't treat these people right ether (not hiring internally, not offering promotions, ect...) While it can be argued that no one innately deserves such things, the fact is most people do expect them, and if they don't get they can end up disliking the job and company. For a company like Apple who thrives mostly on image, such dissatisfaction is dangerous to their future bottom line.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[jedidiah]

The lack of a living wage will simply make particular economic activities unfeasable.

Your attempt to pretend to be Carnegie doesn't alter this.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[khallow]

actually it's a fairly good description of the process you would use to determine the lowest possible wage someone can be self sustaining on.

There are the usual three things to note here. First, not everyone needs to be self-sustaining. In particular, the teenager living in Mom's basement doesn't need to be. They also need job experience. Living wages leave them unemployed unless they happen to be worth those wages.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[hairyfeet]

LOL Wut? The PCs have been pretty much ahead of the curve compared to Apple on everything but shiny. Frankly intel is pushing Ultrabooks not because Apple made the air, but because the average laptop goes for $400 and they know their new core chips can't be sold on machines with THAT low of a margin which is why they are trying to push a market where they can sell i5s and i7s.

Frankly Apple has NEVER been ahead of the curve, they are a brand, like Prada and Nike. You look at even the machines Apple releases on their refresh and you can get machines that very same day that have MOAR power, MOAR memory, MOAR speed, and cost less. the ONLY thing that sells Apple is the brand, because it'll never be hip to carry a Dell or an HP, that's all.

Not saying their machines aren't pretty, or that OSX doesn't look nice, but that is simply not what gets people to line around the block to buy the new iPhone or iPad on release day when there is not a thing wrong with the iPhone or iPad they have. What gets them to camp like tickets to a rock concert is the fact that its simply not cool to carry last year's iPad anymore than it is to wear last year'd designer fashions. Its status, like Gucci or Prada or Armani, which is fine if you are into that but its not because they are ahead of anything, its because its fashion. Oh and before anybody brings up retina don't bother, you've been able to buy ultra HD screens for years its simply not been something people bought. People buy it now not because they suddenly give a crap about ultra HD on such a small screen, its because that ultra HD comes with an Apple logo. hell i'm shocked they haven't gotten into footwear, they could make $40 sneakers in china and slap the logo on and make $250+ a pair, talk about easy money.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[CodeBuster]

Living wages leave them unemployed unless they happen to be worth those wages.

Precisely. What the living wage people either forget or ignore is that the alternative to a "living wage" job is not a lower paid one, but no job at all. So the real effect of a "living wage" law is to ensure that anyone whose labor cannot justify a wage that's at least as high as the "living wage" shall remain unemployed. To hire someone who's labor cannot justify the "living wage" is to engage in charity and many small business owners cannot afford to be that generous.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[ChunderDownunder]

Which is not to say workers are not underpaid in the US as a whole.

e.g. the national minimum wage in Australia is $AU15.51

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[dlp211]

You assume that the demand for labor is quite elastic, I would argue the opposite, that it is quite inelastic.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[fredgiblet]

And yet somehow Australia manages to not be a economic shithole.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[CodeBuster]

If you're a small business and you cannot find the labor that you need, you either do it yourself or do without. I'm not going to hire just any warm body and pay them the "living wage" regardless of whether or not they're capable of doing the job I need done. Running a business is not the same as running a charity; there's a difference.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we ought to fashion a global system of government designed to guarantee useful employ and a humanely-appointed and self-sustaining lifestyle to each and every human being alive, rather than extend the massive self-enrichment scheme of some 200 people (and thousands more aspirants) which we today recognize as the contemporary world's geopolitical organization?

Why can't we--the buliders, architects, drafters, and laborers of the Internet, education, and science, allied with thoughtful and effective politicians, entrepreneurs, and educators--build something better?

Why can't we change the way people think? The way the wealthy and the politically powerful think? Why can't we educate them that to do so is in their best interests as well as the best interests of their fellow humans?

Seriously, people. Let's get on this.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Deorus]

They don't control the entire distribution chain all the way from manufacturers to retailers, either, letting local distributors and retailers essentially eat their lunch, and this is not to mention outsourcing recruitment.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[khallow]

So it's inelastic. You can still end up unemployed because your labor isn't worth living wage. That's a common problem among young black men in the US, for example.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[spiffmastercow]

Your comment is based on your lack of understanding about how badly the dollar has devalued. $12/hour isn't a living wage in a lot of places.

It may not be a living wage, but it's almost twice what my wife makes at Target doing a fairly similar job. Everyone else's wages have been stagnant despite increasing cost of living (I make only about 15% more now than I did right out of college 7 years ago), so I don't see why retail would be an exception. Of course, if we didn't legitimize bribery in our government, maybe we'd have a minimum wage that you could actually live on, but that's a completely different topic.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[jbplou]

I don't think you would do any better at Best Buy and that is about the closest thing I can think of.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[jbplou]

Very few entry level salaries at retail stores pay "living" wages. I don't think you understand that low skilled jobs don't pay high wages.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[dlp211]

Yes, but having a living wage doesn't exacerbate significantly the problem for young black men, but it does solve many other problems. Australia has a $15+ min. wage, near zero governmental debt, and an economy that runs.

And there isn't a market in the world that is 'free'. At best we have a competitive monopolistic market. I swear, everyone took Intro to Micro and never paid attention to the entire section on why markets fail.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[im_thatoneguy]

I see two sides to this.

1) People walk into Apple stores to buy Apple products. iPhones literally sell themselves. It's not the guy with the credit card scanner.

So in this regard, the sales staff, while important--aren't terribly unique or important to the transaction except not being bad. And there are plenty of not-bad employees to choose from. So I see no reason to have high wages.

2) The flip side is that as they say an Apple sales person can easily sell $350,000 worth of *PROFIT* per year. Probably gross sales for an Apple retail employee are a fraction of say a Target checker but that's incredibly efficient--so it seems from a one-off perspective a company which makes $350k from someone's labor every year should give him a good cut of that. Instead they just put the profit into the bank.

As to the article in specific. Comparing an Apple Employee to a Tiffany's employee is a bad comparison. Like I said, an iPhone sells itself. A tiffany's employee needs to present a high-end image to the client. A Tiffany sales person needs to compose themselves like as if they too could afford their goods. That means their expenses for wardrobe are higher, they will have a higher demand on their physical appearance and they need to present an image.

A 20 something sales person at Apple though just needs to be a 20 something person who uses a smart phone... which is pretty much every 20 something in existence.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[superdave80]

Not in New York City they're not, and that is what the New York Times is talking about.

Are you sure about that?

...Jordan Golson sold about $750,000 worth of computers and gadgets at the Apple Store in Salem, N.H.

Well, I guess I can't blame you, since they hid this way down the article in the first sentence...

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Killall -9 Bash]

Who is John Galt?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[sgent]

Tipping in fast food is not customary, and very few do it -- and many places don't allow it.

Servers in tipped positions make $2.13 / hr (although they are guaranteed min. wage if tips don't make up the difference -- although they probably will be fired).

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[khallow]

Young black men are unemployed largely because the only jobs they can get don't pay enough to make it worth working.

That's an interesting opinion which I doubt has any basis in reality. As a counterexample, apparently, there's a lot of people hired into the drug trade at below federal minimum wage. There might be other perks such as sex or drugs, but it remains that a lot of people are working illegally (in more than one sense of the word) for much less than any "living wage" would be. So they're already working at the so-called "don't pay enough to make it worth working" level.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Deorus]

LOL Wut? The PCs have been pretty much ahead of the curve compared to Apple on everything but shiny. Frankly intel is pushing Ultrabooks not because Apple made the air, but because the average laptop goes for $400 and they know their new core chips can't be sold on machines with THAT low of a margin which is why they are trying to push a market where they can sell i5s and i7s.

Yes, Intel never even made countless references to the MacBook Air or even the iPad when addressing their Ultrabook design...

Frankly Apple has NEVER been ahead of the curve, they are a brand, like Prada and Nike. You look at even the machines Apple releases on their refresh and you can get machines that very same day that have MOAR power, MOAR memory, MOAR speed, and cost less. the ONLY thing that sells Apple is the brand, because it'll never be hip to carry a Dell or an HP, that's all.

For someone accusing another poster of fanboyinsm, don't you think you're oversimplifying things a little too much? Have you actually used a Mac? Yes, you can get the same specs for less, but can you get the same specs with the same kind of build quality, battery life, driver support (on both OS X and Windows), display quality, and overall integration with an entire ecosystem for less on anything else?

Not saying their machines aren't pretty, or that OSX doesn't look nice, but that is simply not what gets people to line around the block to buy the new iPhone or iPad on release day when there is not a thing wrong with the iPhone or iPad they have. What gets them to camp like tickets to a rock concert is the fact that its simply not cool to carry last year's iPad anymore than it is to wear last year'd designer fashions. Its status, like Gucci or Prada or Armani, which is fine if you are into that but its not because they are ahead of anything, its because its fashion. Oh and before anybody brings up retina don't bother, you've been able to buy ultra HD screens for years its simply not been something people bought. People buy it now not because they suddenly give a crap about ultra HD on such a small screen, its because that ultra HD comes with an Apple logo. hell i'm shocked they haven't gotten into footwear, they could make $40 sneakers in china and slap the logo on and make $250+ a pair, talk about easy money.

My Nokai 3310 was fine, too, until I tossed it away. Does that mean I should have never bought another phone? Regarding retina, can you please name another brand with them on laptops? Can you name another brand with a 326DPI display on their phones? If it's been available before then I'm sure you can!

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[whargoul]

Take your meds dude.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Noone Thirty]

Apparently Apple as of last week started giving substantial raises, so maybe she's in for some good news.

Apple Retail Employees Getting Sizeable Raises
raising the wages of its retail store employees by as much as a quarter of their wages following an internal review period earlier this year. Employees began learning of the raises in face-to-face meetings with managers last week, according to three Apple employees in various regions across the U.S. The raises, which are based on performance, will begin appearing in paychecks around the middle of July, two of these people said.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Fnord666]

That's an interesting opinion which I doubt has any basis in reality. As a counterexample, apparently, there's a lot of people hired into the drug trade at below federal minimum wage. There might be other perks such as sex or drugs, but it remains that a lot of people are working illegally (in more than one sense of the word) for much less than any "living wage" would be. So they're already working at the so-called "don't pay enough to make it worth working" level.

But does that take into account any benefits that a person getting paid "under the table" also receives? If these individuals take legitimate jobs, they may lose any public assistance benefits they are currently receiving by being unemployed.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Mabhatter]

That's almost $60k a year. For retail that's killer. that's average programmer or sys admin pay (that youre going to get without a specific degree) in most of the US. Even for Union Auto workers that pay either takes 60 hour weeks (on the line) or REQUIRES 60 hour weeks min. (welder, carpenter, etc)

The low end is not terrible. That's about what your average entry level PC tech would get. And WAY over mall rat pay. Comparing Tiffany's to Apple is still Apples to.. Golden Apples. Tiffany's is great, but it's the peak of the Shop Girl jobs. (the best you can really hope for is not to get killed by the plastic dummies)

So for a 10am to 9pm job with no specific college required, little overtime, no on call, etc, its pretty good pay. (not for NYC)

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[milkmage]

is that after the recently announced bump or didn't she tell you ;)

up to 25% wages
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/apple-retail-store-workers-said-to-receive-wage-increases.html

and $500 off a mac, $250 off an ipad (every three years) - ON TOP of the 25% discount.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/06/21/retina.display.macbook.pros.excluded.from.program/

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[neros1x]

Not entirely true. Ask anybody who used a computer in the late 80s, early 90s, and Apple was way ahead. SCSI on the desktop? Check. A completely USB connected home computer? Check. In fact, it was likely that Apple's early insistence on cutting edge tech is at least part of the reason nobody bought them until Steve Jobs came back. SCSI on the desktop? Who the fuck can afford SCSI on the desktop, and why the hell would I need it? I agree however that with core components (processor, graphics card, etc.) Apple's computers are consistently behind PCs. BUT...Apple isn't really interested in selling computers that run Crysis at 2560x5760 in full 3D, because they learned the hard way that such things only serve a niche market. They build PCs like Black & Decker builds coffee makers. You turn it on, it works. Which is exactly why I'll never own an Apple computer. I don't give a shit about user-friendly or stability. I want to play with the naughty bits. I do think in certain areas they are ahead. I hate Apple to the core, but I can't even argue with the quality of the Apple displays. The original iPod scroll wheel was way ahead of its competition, and maybe touchscreen smartphones were inevitable, but the iPhone made it work before anyone else did.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[gutnor]

Of course, that is funny I get it. But seriously, PC maker have been using Intel and Microsoft as a convenient R&D lab. On the consumer side ( 1 sale = 1 machine ), except pushing ever more dubious crippled-ware from their "trusted" partners, their only innovation was in the cost reduction, race to the bottom sector. Big brand only really invested any R&D in the entreprise world ( 1 sale = 10k machines + 3 years maintenance contract + servers + services )

Apple took a different approach, they could not compete on price per MHz (at the time), so they competed on "anything else" that can sell except the price tag, and in a market not fiercely defended by the big players: Joe User market.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Ferzerp]

So, your argument is that SCSI on the desktop (something that died out) means that PC makers do what Apple does? You might want to try a different example...

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[mehrotra.akash]

Frankly Apple has NEVER been ahead of the curve, they are a brand, like Prada and Nike. You look at even the machines Apple releases on their refresh and you can get machines that very same day that have MOAR power, MOAR memory, MOAR speed, and cost less. the ONLY thing that sells Apple is the brand, because it'll never be hip to carry a Dell or an HP, that's all.

I dont have other examples, but the REALLY high res displays ("Retina") on their phones and laptops do kind of put them ahead of the curve
While all the other manufacturers refused to listen to consumers asking for something better than 1366*768 or 1080p, Apple did go ahead and make a laptop and tablet with a higher res diaplay
(and ofc the Macbook Air form factor)

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[shiftless]

actually it's a fairly good description of the process you would use to determine the lowest possible wage someone can be self sustaining on.

Another Keynesian bullshit goal, done for the wrong reasons, which of course (like other Keynesian fallacies) had catastrophic side effects due to its arrogant assumptions that human beings can know enough information about the market to improve it by setting price controls. False. Increasing minimum wage fixes nothing.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[shiftless]

You're welcome to do so, but as of now you've only made an offhand statement. Where's the argument?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[shiftless]

Seriously, people. Let's get on this.

Wow......just wow.....the level of naivete in your post astounds me. This was a joke, or very clever troll....right?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[shiftless]

A living wage is the minimum amount that someone needs to live on and not be a high risk of financial catastrophe, ether by foreseen events (day to day bills) or unforeseen (medical bill related to things like appendicitis).

LOL. You've done nothing here other than show your own naivete and lack of education about money. That's what any of this "labor exploitation" bullshit always boils down to: the people moaning about slavery are slaves because of their stubborn refusal to learn about money and become its master, not be mastered by it. No, they'd rather bitch about capitalism and "robber barons" and this and that.

Read a book some time, and learn how to live standing on your own two feet, instead of living it up paycheck to paycheck and expecting your employer or Somebody Else to cover all ills that may befall you. Life doesn't work life that.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

>LOL Wut? The PCs have been pretty much ahead of the curve compared to Apple on everything but shiny.

OK, pretty strong statement, let's see your proof.

Hmm. . . the fact that Apple has used x86 technology and software for the past ten years.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[samoanbiscuit]

You do realize that most of these manufacturers (especially Lenovo and Sony) have had laptops for sale with screen resolutions in excess of Apple's for years? It's just that most customers don't want to buy them because they're expensive. So they become little-reviewed niche products for industry professionals or rich people that don't want to buy Macs. Apple's innovation has been to make the whole customer base subsidize the costs through economies of scale, making them look both cooler and more technically capable than the other HW makers, while making these high def screens for less money, yay Apple!. They're definitely cooler, but not much more technically capable than their competitors.

However, I still can't believe that Samsung, HTC and other iPhone and iPod competitors haven't paid attention to Apple's history with their iPod. They've always put an emphasis on increasing pixel density whenever possible, so all these other HW makers needed to do to appear to be keeping up was ensure each successive generation of their product levelled up in pixel density instead of their stupid race to increase phone screen size. The people in charge of making those decisions for Samsung, Motorola and HTC should have been fired the day the retina iPhone came out for being idiots.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[arkane1234]

Frankly, you're trying to make it sound like Apple just takes what is out there and puts it into their shell.
You've lost the entire picture, if that's what you think. If you look at what is sold by Apple, you'll realize it's not comparable to a $400 laptop any more than an $1,100 non-Apple laptop is comparable to a $400 laptop.

Not everyone "camps out" in the line to get the iPad/iPhone when the new one comes out. Much like everyone doesn't "camp out" in a harry potter movie ticket line to see harry potter.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[arkane1234]

IDE died out too, but note it all happened in the future and not at the time of the product use.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[arkane1234]

Working at burger king is mindless work where you move items from one place to another and push a button.
What's changed is that burger king is still that, but working at an Apple store is a touch above that since it's either computer work (genius bar) or customer service. (people on the floor)

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

I work for an airline and get free flights, does that mean that airlines ass rape it's customers?
Hint: the answer's no.

Amusingly, this comes from a person who hasn't had to buy an airline ticket in years and gets to bypass getting felt up by TSA officials.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Ferzerp]

SCSI was never common on the desktop was my point. That it died out was just parenthetical info.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[winwar]

Your minimum wage statistic is wrong. In my state, for instance, minimum wage is above $9 an hour for tipped positions.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

Except that the teenager living in Mom's basement isn't working 40 hours/week, and so isn't hitting the gross annual income that the living wage hourly pay rate is based on.

And the teenagers that need job experience typically take the same jobs that the people who need the living wage do - fry cook, server, whatever joe jobs you can get without a high school diploma. To deny teenagers that hourly wage while giving it to full-time employees would be age discrimination.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

Australia also didn't spend ten billion dollars bailing out Wall Street and a defective auto industry and have to finance three wars on foreign soil. Our problems go a lot deeper than just minimum wage.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anubis IV]

It's a retail job. Their turnover is doubtless pretty high. I'd still be willing to bet it's lower than that of an average retail job, however.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

Whoops. That was supposed to be 'trillion.'

Too many zeros for my poor little public-schooled brain to handle.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

I disagree with your assessment. Outside of the alpha cities and a few other bizarre locales like parts of Arizona, the large majority of America is perfectly suited for a single person living on $25K a year, as long as one doesn't have to pay off school loans. The midwest, the south, the flyover states, most of New England, you can have a 1-bedroom apartment for $600 a month without any problem, and many places are even cheaper than that. That's less than the 1/3 of income that every money-management advisor recommends as the maximum amount of income to spend on housing. That leaves you $1200-1300 per month after taxes to spend on food, gas, clothing, a modest car payment, entertainment, and the occasional medical bill (assuming you have insurance). If you don't have insurance, then you're probably fucked even if you make $20/hr.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[erp_consultant]

Exactly. Retail, restaurants and hotels pay lousy wages. I know this because I washed dishes in a hotel for $3/hr back in the day when I was in high school. I understood then that it wasn't a career choice, it was a way to put a few bucks in my pocket while I was working my way towards a real career. In our society, retail jobs and customer service jobs are not considered high skill. Therefore, the pay will be commensurate to it. It might seem unfair but that's the way it is. The solution is to get skills that allow you to move up the ladder so to speak.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[CodeBuster]

Young black men are unemployed largely because the only jobs they can get don't pay enough to make it worth working.

In other words, they've got an attitude problem. Contrast that with the Mexicans or Asians who work hard, don't complain and accept the wage offered. In a few generations their children and grandchildren are joining the ranks of the working professionals and the upper middle class. Meanwhile there are still many blacks who sit on their hands and complain that the deck is stacked against them and that low paying jobs "aren't worth it". Give me a break.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

My thoughts exactly. For retail, $12/hour is a fucking steal. I ran into my old boss from Lowe's a few months ago, and he wanted to bring me back on part-time to cover the end of the night, doing the same thing I did during my early undergrad years, a CSR in flooring. With five years of experience, a good enough reputation that he wanted me back, and desperation to fill the spot so he didn't have to be a salary slave, he still couldn't guarantee me more than $10/hr.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Where exactly is this "most places" you speak of? I live in Phoenix, which is within a few percent of the national average cost of living index, and $10 an hour (while not exactly providing for a luxurious lifestyle) was plenty to live off of only a year ago (I've increased my income substantially since then, in case you're wondering.)

Source: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+in+phoenix

Keep in mind, cities like New York with their large populations and massive cost of living over the national average go a long ways towards pushing up that national average figure, while only being a tiny fraction of the US. To say that 12/hour isn't a living wage in most places is a bit naive.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

Except that there are two million Americans over the age of 25 making minimum wage or less* in this country. And the raises most people get after their trial periods are up are usually only fifty cents per hour, maybe a dollar if your trial period wage is $15/hr.

$7.25 or $8.50/hr, you're going to have a difficult time making ends meet.

That said, I totally agree with your sentiments that raising minimum wage again won't solve any problems, and that most people are fucking idiots and have no idea how to handle their money. Give those 'tards 50% more on the hour, and they'll still buy houses and cars they can't afford. The people living on near-minimum wage that can handle their money and would actually see an significant increase in quality-of-life are in the very small minority.

*Less is because of the $2.13/hr minimum wage for tipped employees, which hasn't been increased in 20 or so years.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

Funny what happens after Jobs dies. Retail workers get raises, Chinese production labor gets raises, one day off and two more slices of bread a week, and Apple stock pays dividends for the first time in twenty years. California finally gets auto registration fees from Apple's CEO.

And yet Bill Gates, who has given billions to philanthropy, is the "evil one."

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[sammyF70]

thanks for proving his point :P

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Dan541]

Apple store is a touch above that since it's either computer work (genius bar) or customer service. (people on the floor)

Both positions are just retail sale jobs.
The customer service people sell products and the "Genius" Bar get people to buy replacements.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[kenh]

Who said $12/hour was a "living wage"?

And why should Apple pay retail clerks walking the floor a wage designed to support a family of four? Do the clerks add THAT MUCH value to the proposition that they deserve $20-25/hr + benefits?

Should Apple ignore the near inexhaustible supply of willing and able workers that will take the job for $12/hour?

If Apple were to double retail clerk pay ($12 -> $25/hr) do you think Apple would keep the same number of clerks, halve the number of clerks or create more clerk positions? My money is on halving the number of clerks in the store.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[kenh]

$15-16 at Tiffany was a swipe at Tiffany as well...

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[rtb61]

What is the point of working if you are not earning a living wage, seriously, why? Who would you be fooling working eight hours a day five days a week basically pointlessly, can't afford health insurance, can't afford a reasonable place to live, can barely afford to sustain yourself only sufficiently to be able to turn up for work. Why work within that system when logically your only hope of a future is to rebel against it, especially when you see all those cheats, liars and thieves wallowing around at the top of it.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[X0563511]

Please, take too many of them. Perhaps he'll OD and be too sick to bother us with such a post again for some time.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[sjames]

Even slaves got (crappy) room and board out of the deal. People making less than a living wage don't even get that. They are probably better off out of work.

If we allow employers to hire people at less than a living wage, we just end up subsidizing their payroll with food stamps. Shall we also help them buy labor saving devices at a discount and pay their power bills for them?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[X0563511]

Me either. However, I do find myself generating some outrage at the overall picture.

If you're working full time, you should be paid enough to live. I don't care if you're job is cleaning up dog shit in the park. If you can't afford to live off a full-time job, then you are not employed, you are enslaved.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[X0563511]

I was a systems administrator at a large datacenter, and am currently a support engineer for a major company, yet she makes 30% more than I do. I'm also good at my job.

I smell bullshit.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." Get off your "I deserve a certain standard of living" soapbox and go south of the border for two minutes to see that standard of living has nothing to do with contentment and happiness.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Lord Kano]

Maybe that's because most PC manufacturers use Apple as an R&D department.

Style is not R & D. There's little question that Apple provides inspiration in the area of style, but their R & D is completely separate from every other company's.

Apple has taken the lead in bringing new technologies (usually developed by others) to the mainstream. Intel deployed USB as a part of their chipsets for years before Apple adopted the technology. When Apple started using USB, the industry followed suit. Apple was the first to make CD-ROM standard equipment in a home computer. Apple was the first major company to standardize on 3.5" floppies and later they were the first to eliminate them.

Apple's track record of bringing new technology to the mainstream is unrivaled, but that is not the same thing as Apple developing these technologies.

Seriously, other than IEEE 1394, what Apple developed standard has gotten mainstream acceptance? I assume that you'll come up with an example or two, but they'll be outliers that I just didn't think of. Not real ground-breaking developments in the IT world.

LK

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[atlasdropperofworlds]

That must be why all those macbook pros have the specs of laptops that are up to $1000 cheaper. Either that or there is something to the case that we don't know about.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[bemymonkey]

LOL Wut? The PCs have been pretty much ahead of the curve compared to Apple on everything but shiny. Frankly intel is pushing Ultrabooks not because Apple made the air, but because the average laptop goes for $400 and they know their new core chips can't be sold on machines with THAT low of a margin which is why they are trying to push a market where they can sell i5s and i7s.

Frankly Apple has NEVER been ahead of the curve, they are a brand, like Prada and Nike. You look at even the machines Apple releases on their refresh and you can get machines that very same day that have MOAR power, MOAR memory, MOAR speed, and cost less. the ONLY thing that sells Apple is the brand, because it'll never be hip to carry a Dell or an HP, that's all.

Just a little bit delusional, aren't you?

Hate Apple all you want, but they deliver a very cohesive package when it comes to laptops, all-in one desktops and smartphone, and it's an experience that non-Slashdotters can actually have without calling a tech geek to set it up for them.

As for never being ahead of the curve - that's just bullshit. Have you SEEN a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air in person? Or an iMac? They're quite impressive haptically and performance-wise, ESPECIALLY when compared to "regular" Windows machines (the type of thing you'd buy at a big-box electronics store) running a crapware-laden manufacturer image... even more so if you don't compare them with an Ultrabook or other brand new notebook, but rather with Windows machines that were on the market when the 11.6 & 13" MBAs came out. Have you seen ANY new developments in the Windows laptop or Android smartphone world over the last few years that weren't at least "inspired" by Apple? I know I"m glad that my Galaxy Nexus and my Thinkpad work the way they do, but I have no problem admitting that many of the features were pioneered by Apple.

Yes, Apple products are often used by people more concerned with style than substance... but that shouldn't change your opinion of the actual products. I wouldn't give up my Thinkpads and custom-built desktops for any Apple device (mainly because I can do things with my machines that no Apple machine can do), but given the choice between a modern Ultrabook or a MacBook, I don't think I'd go with the Ultrabook - and I'm a die-hard Windows user.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[atlasdropperofworlds]

> OK, pretty strong statement, let's see your proof.

The first macbook pro with IVB processors came out about a week ago. Dell already put out an IVB-based laptop almost a month earlier. You can get a decent video card in any macbook, save for the new 15" retina, and even then your best option is mid-range, however Acer has already had a kepler GPU in a laptop since march. Apple is often last to deploy the latest hardware, unless it something like thunderbolt. Of course, there is almost nothing in the market for thunderbolt still, so it's not exactly the most useful technology outside of apple thunderbolt displays.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[atlasdropperofworlds]

> Have you actually used a Mac? Yes, you can get the same specs for less, but can you get the same specs with the same kind of build quality, battery life, driver support (on both OS X and Windows), display quality, and overall integration with an entire ecosystem for less on anything else?

Yes. Owned 2. Mananged to sell them, fortunately.

Again, yes. I currently have a dell XPS 15 with an HD display. The display is better than all MBPs short of the 17" 1920x1200 with matte display. It has a better sound system with integrated subwoofer, and I opted for the 9 cell batter which is giving me 6-7 hours of real-world performance despite the XPS having a quad core SB i7. Build quality? Let's qualify that: Build materials of the case of the MBP are better. Quality and fitment is the same: The XPS is well-built, but has some plastic. Considering the XPS is outfitted like a MBP that is twice the price, I don't care at all.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[DJ Particle]

Not true in all states... some states do assume wait staff, pizza drivers, et al will get tipped, and allow the restaurant to adjust the base pay below minimum wage to account for it. The caveat is that if the tips do NOT make up the difference to minimum wage, the restaurant has to.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[DJ Particle]

To be fair, how many of those workers are working full time to get that $60K?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[AmiMoJo]

There are the usual three things to note here. First, not everyone needs to be self-sustaining. In particular, the teenager living in Mom's basement doesn't need to be. They also need job experience. Living wages leave them unemployed unless they happen to be worth those wages.

On the other hand if you do need to be self-sustaining but some teenager living in his mum's basement is willing to undercut the wages you need just to survive you will be unemployed.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[AmiMoJo]

An iPhone may sell itself but Apple profits heavily from upgrades and accessories. Any salesperson who can up-sell from the base model and get the customer to sign up to Apple Care is generating extra revenue.

Unfortunately for employees the only reward for this behaviour is keeping their job.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[atlasdropperofworlds]

>Oh, and he always claims how he can get x specs for y dollars, yet he never provides concrete, verifiable examples.

I just checked the HP website. I just picked a random 15 inch laptop there (the pavillion dv6tqe), and specced it, as close as I could, to the 15 MBP. I got the price up to $1200 ($1450 less $250), but it had more RAM (8 GB) an HD antiglare display, a kepler 650M with 2 GB of GDDR5 (the MPB's kepler comes with 512 MB). I also threw in a 9 cell battery which is rated at 9 hrs of battery life and a 750 GB HDD at 7200 RPM (the MBP has a 500 GB 5200 RPM HDD). The 15" MBP is still $1799 without options. If I had just upgraded the pavillion's graphics and display and nothing else, it would cost about $1100, but would still have double the RAM and HDD space and a higher resolution display. A $700 price difference is big when you consider that the cheaper system is specced higher. The retina MBP is more interesting, but when I was mucking about with it I had a hard time finding a way to actually use the high pixel density. I like pixel density, and I like that apple is pushing it, but 15" laptops don't need resolutions that high - it's just not usable.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[vakuona]

I say fortunately. I do not like aggressive sales staff. Let me play around with said gadgets, and answerf my questions when I ask, otherwise leave me alone to it. Apple stores are really good at that. I do not want used car salesmen in an Apple store.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[beelsebob]

Seems fair enough to me... Did some googling for other retail jobs you might be unlucky enough to do...
McDonalds Cashier: $7.63
McDonalds Manager: $9.69
Burger King Cashier: $7.92
Burger King Manager: $10.55
Macy's Sales Associate: $8.51
WalMart Sales Associate: $8.82
WalMart Manager: $11.15
Sony Sales Associate: $9.81

Apple Shop Flunky: $11.72
Apple Genius Bar Employee: $18.06

Basically, it seems that yes, Apple pays its retail employees pretty well... In fact, it seems to pay it's retail flunkies more than most shops pay their managers.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Dracophile]

We got rocks that other people want.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[beelsebob]

Yep, I came to the same conclusion –more so, I found retail store managers seem to get paid less than the flunkies in Apple stores, and geniuses in apple stores 1.5 times that again... I have no idea why we should be upset at this.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[excelsior_gr]

Because rebels are nowadays labeled "terrorists" and thus get no sympathy at all from the other 51% of the population that sit comfortably in their living-rooms watching the rebellion on TV.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anonymous Coward]

Because less is better than nothing. People working in Apple stores are either doing it because they want to work there specifically or because it pays better than the available alternatives.

The biggest nonsense about the 'living wage' is that the number everyone bands about is the wage required for one working family member to support a family of 4. Maybe if they want a 4 person family they should be doing work that 90%+ of graduates, students, school leavers etc can do and earn well above the living wage for a single individual.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[makomk]

In fact, it was likely that Apple's early insistence on cutting edge tech is at least part of the reason nobody bought them until Steve Jobs came back. SCSI on the desktop? Who the fuck can afford SCSI on the desktop, and why the hell would I need it?

Not just SCSI, but from what I've heard a really buggy, incompatible implementation of SCSI.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[khallow]

On the other hand if you do need to be self-sustaining but some teenager living in his mum's basement is willing to undercut the wages you need just to survive you will be unemployed.

That just means that you need to survive some other way in some other place. It's not fair to the teenager to take them out of the job market.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[khallow]

Perhaps we ought to fashion a global system of government designed to guarantee useful employ and a humanely-appointed and self-sustaining lifestyle to each and every human being alive, rather than extend the massive self-enrichment scheme of some 200 people (and thousands more aspirants) which we today recognize as the contemporary world's geopolitical organization?

There's no reason for it. Such a global system, once in place, has nothing to keep it "humane" or to continue to dole out "lifestyle". OTOH, the current approach of competing nations does a better job of the same. You can move or flee to a better country, if the one you're in is a disaster. It's an option that wouldn't exist in the global thing.

I also don't see that even if it could be implemented, that it would be a good idea. Humanity isn't just "lifestyle". A lot of lifestyles are to say the least, uninteresting and not useful to anyone else. We tolerate them because they don't interfere with our lives (not just our lifestyles). The "humanely-appointed and self-sustaining lifestyle" sounds like a particularly sour class of useless, granola-bar-eating lifestyles imposed on us by people who frankly, probably wouldn't have a clue what a life was, much less a lifestyle.

Why can't we--the buliders, architects, drafters, and laborers of the Internet, education, and science, allied with thoughtful and effective politicians, entrepreneurs, and educators--build something better?

Lack of skills and knowledge for one thing. You don't have the skills to modify societies. And even if you did, you wouldn't have a clue as to what a better society would look like. This is the universal problem with utopian societies.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[johnstrass1]

Who said that one should work only 40 hours per week?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Grudge2012]

Not just SCSI, but from what I've heard a really buggy, incompatible implementation of SCSI.

And by "incompatible" you sure mean "could handle 8 devices unlike many PC SCSI cards that could only handle one".

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[floydman]

My wife works at an Apple store and pulls in $29.15 an hour working the genius bar. Which means that she would have been able to qualify for the mortgage we took out three months ago just on her salary. The 25% employee discount is nice also.

Methinks the poster has an axe to grind with his inflamatory language.

how long did it take her to get that salary? or was that when she just started?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[roman_mir]

Seriously? How many people should go to work and spend 4 years working with low pay and gain work experience but be free of government debt while getting more valuable as a worker over these 4 years instead of taking yet another sociology course with borrowed money?

By the way, are you a proponent of minimum wage? Because if your question: "if you are not earning a living wage, seriously, why?" is truly a question, then the answer is obvious: people want to get experience, learn something on a job and eventually move on to better paying positions.

Now can you answer this question for me: I have been working for myself for a few years, not paying myself any salary while building my software, according to your theory I shouldn't be doing it, right? I mean as a contractor I was making 15-22K per month, so I should have just kept doing it and instead I quit contracting and used the savings to build my own capital (capital, as in means of production), so what do you say to all the people who just do things without getting paid? Inventors, investors, writers, composers, musicians, etc? So what about people who work not even for a paycheck, but hoping/betting that their investment will pay off at some point? They can lose, it's easy to lose on an investment, it's easy to fail in business.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Grudge2012]

Well. It all depends. It all depends on whether or not you buy into all of the propaganda fanboys like to spout about their brand being like BMW.

That is why the comparison was being drawn with Tiffany and not Walmart.

If Apple is really like GM or Walmart, then the crap pay is not really out of place.

Funny you bring up Tiffany's. The sales people there not only have to pay for their business clothing (they of course have to wear) themselves, they also have to buy all the jewelry they wear at Tiffany's - and they do have to wear some too.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Grudge2012]

Not in New York City they're not, and that is what the New York Times is talking about.

Actually, no they are not. Not one mention of New York in the article.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Grudge2012]

I was a systems administrator at a large datacenter, and am currently a support engineer for a major company, yet she makes 30% more than I do. I'm also good at my job.

I smell bullshit.

An Apple Store Genius not only has to be knowledgeable about technology, they also have to have good communication skills. And be, well, "presentable".

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Richy_T]

Your definition of enslaved is not only factually incorrect but makes no sense metaphorically either.

You would be metaphorically enslaved if you could not afford to leave a job, not if you could not afford to stay in it.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Richy_T]

Being like BMW? You mean driven by assholes?

(J/K, I know there are some decent BMW drivers out there

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[tkrotchko]

Actually, this is wrong. There is no person named John Galt even in the book.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[raque]

BK in the 80's was staffed by kids and retires. The Apple store isn't. This has been one of the big stories on the collapse of the American job market. People who used to make a living wage are now competing for former kids jobs.

And this being called called okay!?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[raque]

Young black men are unemployed largely because the only jobs they can get don't pay enough to make it worth working.

That's an interesting opinion which I doubt has any basis in reality. As a counterexample, apparently, there's a lot of people hired into the drug trade at below federal minimum wage. There might be other perks such as sex or drugs, but it remains that a lot of people are working illegally (in more than one sense of the word) for much less than any "living wage" would be. So they're already working at the so-called "don't pay enough to make it worth working" level.

Are we legitimizing criminal activity here? A lot of working off the books is done so people can keep their Medicaid while trying to approach a living wage.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[raque]

A quick google shows fast food starting pay is right around $8/hour, retail at $9/hour, so I'm having trouble generating any outrage over Apple paying $12/hour.

To misquote Shaw "If you put an American worker on a spit you can always find another who will turn him"

Now I know why Apple and others pay what they do. The bright souls on Slashdot are engaged in a race to the bottom instead of helping each other.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[cthulhu11]

Apple had sleeping working years before Dell did. Actually, that assumes that Dell finally did -- it never worked when I was stuck with one. Said Dell also got dragged onto the floor more than once while Apple users enjoyed MagSafe power connections. The ability to sync contacts and calendars alone justified getting my iPhone. Motorola couldn't be bothered.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Sir_Sri]

I didn't say it equates to the minimum wage.

But if you're paying an employee and you want them to be self sustaining (i.e. you want them to be able to make a career out of working for you) this sort of data tells you a lot.

If you don't want them to be self sustaining and you don't want them to make a career of it you pay less than minimum wage. Which is what apple is doing and why their average turnover is 2 and a half years as per the article. They don't want people making a career as sales clerks. They do however view genius bar as a viable career and pay accordingly.

It contributes to discussions of the minimum wage, because you need to know where you're setting one number relative to the other. If a living wage is 25 an hour and minimum wage is 5 then you can reasonably conclude that no one making minimum wage will be self sustaining. If the gap is 12 dollars and 10 dollars well then you're within the margins of error on your numbers. You can also start to factor in costs of eduction or other factors that would produce labour mobility and so on.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[roman_mir]

It's not 'making a living wage' when I am not getting paid, this is purely an investment, I could as well have taken the same money that I saved and put it into some other use. This is my risk - doing this type of work, and there is opportunity cost - I could have continued contracting for these few years instead of building my own systems.

Again, according to the GP (rtb61) this shouldn't be done, because, in his words:

What is the point of working if you are not earning a living wage, seriously, why?

In my case I did save money and that's my investment, in other cases people can save money, borrow money from others as an investment.

They can ALSO take a job that DOES NOT PAY WELL, because they are investing their TIME in order to gain experience that will help them to be more productive later, when they will have more experience and be able to make more money. It is the same thing - sacrificing something hoping for some useful outcome.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Sir_Sri]

Right, and no job at all may actually be better than a very low paying job, that's why we have social welfare and assistance, so that people who are not ever going to be self sustaining can get the training they need to be something more than a serf their entire lives. (And so that people who won't ever be able to work won't starve to death and won't pose more dangers to society than they already do).

And if your business can't sustain itself on paying people a reasonable wage (not necessarily a living wage) then you probably shouldn't be in business.

If you want to work for a dollar an hour feel free to hop on a boat to china or somalia. I'm sure you'll do just fine. If you don't want to work for a dollar an hour then your choices are trying to get training for a job (which requires money) or making a go of it at minimum wage.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Sir_Sri]

I think I mentioned all of those things.

Except for the notion that living wages leave people unemployed. All minimum wages have that effect, regardless of where you set the number. At some point you're better off not working, and investing your time in job training through social assistance than spending time working and trapping yourself in poverty you'll never get out of. Absent any form of social assistance sure, we could go back to peasant farmers and serfs working for just enough to not starve to death on and not having the ability to be anything more than menial labour, and then minimum wage laws would be depriving the weak peasants of any sort of work.

But that's not the world we live in, and definitely not one we want to live in.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[atlasdropperofworlds]

>I never did understand though why apple fanbois get all butthurt when you point out its fashion and then jump through logic hoops trying to justify the increased cost.

Yes, it a funny thing is that they don't factor in the most justifiable reason to buy apple: It's the product they prefer, and they'll will to pay for it. This is a totally justifiable reason. The cost of apple is high, and it is high to most people, but there is always a segment that pays extra for the status and/or OSX. In rich countries, this is about 1 in 5 people - plenty for revenue for apple to innovate. We actually *want* apple to be successful because they do a fair bit of market experimentation with their extra cash, but they have to be overpriced in order to have that cash, which will necessarily reduce their market penetration. I don't see them ever going away, and I don't see them ever taking over the world, but I always see them as one force mixing up the market and pushing it forwards.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Tourney3p0]

All three of the people who stand to benefit from a 2880x1800 15" screen agree.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[roman_mir]

Contrast that with a recent graduate, an unskilled worker, an older worker with more limited job options.

- so what? I was an unskilled worker once upon the time, sometimes making below minimum wage, sometimes making minimum wage, I believe I spent about 2 years having those types of jobs. I don't see how that hurt me in any way, I didn't have the skills, I didn't have the capital, I probably couldn't have been more useful to anybody else at higher wages anyway. I WAS HAPPY that I could get jobs at all at some point in my life, what is your point? Everybody is born without skills, we don't know how to wipe our asses even when we are born, we can't even hold our heads straight on our own, does it mean we are useful right away and should be able to command a salary that allows us to have a minimum living standard of some sort?

Says who?

People have intrinsic value in that they can learn to be useful to others in some way, but nobody owes them anything (maybe their parents owe them something, but even that is questionable). Nobody owes us a living wage, nobody owes us a job that would satisfy our interests, etc.

We are born into this world absolutely naked and completely useless. It's up to the parents to figure out how to turn us into something useful, and the parents have (or used to have) a motivation for that as well - people used to HELP their parents, because it was customary, but it was not a government law.

People took care of their children and children took care of their parents. In the current society for some reason the care for other people's children is distributed among the tax payers, and this is total bullshit nonsense. It only makes sense for orphans, and even THEN it shouldn't be a law, that somebody must sacrifice to help others, it must be purely up to people's charity.

Those who receive charity shouldn't be abstracted away from those who pay, because then this charity becomes a fucking entitlement system.

You feel that if you are born - the system owes you something? No it does not. You are living on charity if the system is taking care of you, but you don't even know it, you think you are entitled to other people's money, which means you think other people should give up their productivity, their time, the time of their lives, their work, their effort and this is done by the threat of government violence,

Taxes are paid only because there is a violent outcome against those, who refuse to pay. This is a threat of violence, and this is no charity.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[roman_mir]

The reason so many people are drawing Unemployment benefits and/or Welfare is because the minimum wage is so low it doesn't justify the increased expenses on the worker.

- no, the real reason why so many people are drawing unemployment and welfare is because those opportunities exist and it's because the highest tax bracket is going from welfare or EI to being employed again.

All of a sudden your taxes go up from 0 to something, anything, and it has to be a really really great opportunity for somebody to forego the freedom of not having to work and just get a check in mail, even if it is a small check.

But think about this: If you are on EI or welfare, you don't have to get up in the morning and go to work. You don't have to drive anywhere, you don't have to dress up, you don't have to leave the house. All of a sudden you are not in a paid vacation anymore. You have to pay taxes, you have to go to work and do something, you have to be there on time and you can't just leave whenever you feel like it. You will have various expenses, transit or gas and car payments, car insurance, maintenance, you have to dress up. You can't just go to a park in the middle of the day and spend 5 hours there, you can't go to the beach.

OTOH you can work under table and make your welfare or EI and also have extra income, and again, you are not paying taxes on any of it.

Oh, what about free medical care for those, who are on welfare or EI? They have medical care, don't they? All of a sudden they may have WORSE medical care, they may have worse type of insurance coverage.

No no, for somebody to get off welfare or EI it takes not a minimum wage, it takes many times that, maybe 4 times the minimum wage for it to make sense. That's how fucked up the system is - all this government interference causes all the prices to be so high, while providing the moral hazard of welfare state and setting wage and price controls (minimum wage, prices on medical procedures, etc.), and all that this does is that it causes prices to be much higher both in nominal terms (dollar amounts) and in real terms (real money, quality, opportunity, etc.)

No, government isn't doing anybody any favours in this, except it gets the opportunity to sell this idea of socialism to the dumbest segment of population - the voters who want this free cheese and the poverty mousetrap that comes with it.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[X0563511]

Are you saying I didn't? I had to wear the monkey suit some days. Talk to customers constantly. Take prospective customers on tours of the facility.

I was hardly a server-room gnome...

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[LordLimecat]

We havent had 140% inflation since the 1990s. Based on food prices etc, we're looking at 20% or so, not much more. $12 / hour for retail is really quite decent, its on par with what a waiter makes, and the waiter works a heck of a lot harder.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[thesandtiger]

Who is John Galt?

A stupid character from a hilariously bad book that espouses ideas even a child would find simplistic and misguided.

Happy to help if it means I saved you the time of reading that tripe!

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Phoghat]

For 2 years I worked at Radio Shack,thought it would be fun. Pay was minimumwage, plus some commission, and the commissions, "perks" , and they kept getting smaller and smaller. I would have been happy with $11.91

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[hairyfeet]

Which is why I said if they like the brand then they should buy it PERIOD and quit with the logic hoops. I like Ford trucks, especially the Rangers. does that mean that Ford is "better" or that Chevy is "worse' than Ford? Nope it just fits me better than the other trucks, everything is laid out perfectly for me, so that is why I like Ford. My oldest has a Chevy S10 and feels the same way about it, even though it feels like a low rider to me, but to him it all fits his body like it was made for him so that is what makes him happy.

I have to wonder if it isn't part of the whole "Cult of Mac" thing in that it isn't enough for them to simply be happy with what they have, they have to somehow be "better" or "superior" to someone else. My grandfather was like that, with $1000 suits and a caddy every year, but I just find that shallow myself.

If Apple or Gucci or prada makes something you like and you think its worth the cost? Then please by all means buy it. But just don't delude yourself that just because YOU bought Brand X that Brand X is somehow better or more perfect than Brand Y or Z, because Apple hasn't been ahead of any curves in years, its not sinking tons of money into R&D and designing all this stuff, its simply buying parts and putting them together, no different than Dell or HP. in fact retailers like Tiger now offer better accident protection at a cheaper price than Applecare so you can't even claim that is the reason to buy.

Its just a brand folks, like Coke or Pepsi, and if it makes you happy than just be happy and buy it. The fact that you can't seem to be happy unless you are right and they are wrong just makes me wonder if that little voice isn't telling you the same thing I am, that you spent too much if all you cared about was hardware and not fashion.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I think what the poster is saying is that if the pay were good generally, there wouldn't be the turn over. Turnover happens due to pay / responsibility imbalances. There is nothing about retail that is inherently worse than factory work , but factory workers hang on for decades because of the middle class wages such jobs used to pay.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Anubis IV]

There is nothing about retail that is inherently worse than factory work

Sure there is. You have to deal with customers. That'll suck out most people's souls in time. Factory work is an honest day's labor where you get to make something. Retail work can leave you scarred if you have to deal with a particularly bad customer.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[cthulhu11]

Clearly you've never priced electronics there.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[WOOFYGOOFY]

For a certain type of person this is true. For another type of person, factory work is souless and interacting and helping customers is more varied and interesting.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[khallow]

Yes, but having a living wage doesn't exacerbate significantly the problem for young black men

Sure there's a sense in which that makes sense, such as putting another bullet in a dead person. It's not going to make them more dead after all. OTOH, we could just get rid of the living wage ideology. That seems more useful to the people that supposedly are being helped.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[dudeman500]

Communism?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[andymadigan]

Apple was the first to use Intel Core CPUs, which were an enormous improvement over the cooking devices known as the Pentium 4. Apple has been ahead of PCs in the laptop market ever since. PCs have started to catch up in the past year or two, at the same time the iPad, iPhone and their clones have begun to replace PCs themselves.

Apple has its flaws, I swear my mac misses every fifth click or so, and it prompts me to 'identify' my keyboard far too often... but Apple is leading the market. The reason seems to be that nobody else is willing to put the money into new ideas that they are. Microsoft has the cash and the incentive to change things, but without control of the hardware they're left with most customers buying the cheapest hardware available and having a terrible (or at least mediocre) experience... thus the Surface strategy.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

Apple was the first to use Intel Core CPUs, which were an enormous improvement over the cooking devices known as the Pentium 4.

Um. . . no. Intel launched the Core architecture in January 2006, at the same time as both various PCs and the MacBook Pro and iMac were refreshed. Apple didn't get some exclusive six month-contract or something. . . and with SB and IB, they've been about two months behind the most expeditious PC makers both times - the first IB Mac launched less than two weeks ago, when the first PCs were shipping in April.

How can Apple possibly be leading the hardware market when they're using the same hardware that goes in PCs? The only hardware they lead in is displays.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Serpents]

I don't know about the US, but here having a minimum wage job (well below poverty line) usually means you don't qualify for any kind of welfare. On the other hand, welfare does not guarantee survival either (won't even cover cost of food). Of course there are some who still claim that the minimum wage is way too high but given that unemployment among people 18-24 yo is ca. 40% and most people will take ANY job at the moment, and the fact that I see more and more Porsches, Ferraris et al. in the streets I don't think the minimum wage is the problem we have here.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Wovel]

So like 10 a week? He checked out 10 people buying computers a week for a year (assuming the 750k was not over some longer time period). How much selling did he do? I am sure a lot of those "sales" we're him acting as a cashier. 30% GM - operating expenses (those stores aren't cheap), how much does he think he should make for pushing the last button?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Wovel]

Who has had a laptop with > 2880x1800 for years? One link. Stop just making shit up because you think it sounds good.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[samoanbiscuit]

I was referring to the screen resolutions of the previous generation Macbook Pros (1440x900 and 1920x1200). Other laptop makers have had niche models with resolutions and pixel densities in excess of them, but they never sold as well as the race-to-the-bottom 1366x768 laptops. Stop reading my post in the most uncharitable light possible because you think it makes you smart.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[AdamWill]

Comparing it to what you earned two decades ago, as other repliers have said, is absurd. The appropriate comparison is 'similar jobs at the present time'. It seems to be true that $12/hr isn't a terrible starting wage in retail, though, and the story is really just spinning it. Certainly where I live, that's a fairly normal retail wage.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[LanMan04]

I assume that you'll come up with an example or two, but they'll be outliers that I just didn't think of.

No true scotsman

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[shutdown -p now]

A bunch of people did back in 19th century, when it was found from experience that working dawn till dusk is not particularly healthy.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[neros1x]

No my argument is that Apple used to try to stay ahead of the hardware rat race, and it failed miserably for them. Now, they aim for the hardware necessary to give most consumers the experience they want. I don't like the company, but that was certainly a wise decision.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[neros1x]

Amusingly, this comes from a person who hasn't had to buy an airline ticket in years and gets to bypass getting felt up by TSA officials.

. Are we seriously bitching about a company that benefits its employee's well?

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[MagusSlurpy]

No, we're bitching about a guy that said since his employer treats him well, that somehow means OF COURSE it also treats its customers well.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[jandrese]

You know what I like about Apple stores? They're not pushy with the overpriced accessories. Last time I bought an iPhone the employee just showed me a list of what Applecare provides, and said he could add it to my bill if I'm interested. No hard sell, no pushing, just an upfront assessment of cost vs. service. For what it's worth, Applecare is pretty much the only warranty I purchase because it's so low BS. If something breaks (and I have a 2 year old), I just make an appointment, bring it in, and they fix it on the spot or at worst keep it a couple of days. No mailing it back at my own expense and waiting 4-6 weeks and then discovering that it only covered parts, not labor.

It's like they care about long term customer satisfaction or something. It's weird.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[Eponymous Hero]

the reason why people don't understand this is they mistakenly believe working the genius bar is anything other than a low skilled job. that's the whole point of apple products -- any idiot can use them. the genius bar is there to serve those dumber than idiots. this, on the other hand, is what i call a high skill job: http://www.theonion.com/video/new-apple-friend-bar-gives-customers-someone-to-ta,17693/

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[neros1x]

Fair enough.

Re:That pay is just for the first few months

[scot4875]

That doesn't even make sense. If they were using Apple as R&D, it should *increase* their profit margins.

--Jeremy

Question already answered

[daveschroeder]

"Would you rather start at an Apple store for $11.91 an hour (average starting base pay, according to the linked article) and an employee discount, or at Tiffany for $15.60?"

I think the people who work at Apple Stores -- and others waiting for callbacks -- have already answered that.

What, supply and demand suddenly can't drive wages now?

But I imagine this, like any article on Foxconn (aka "Apple factory"; forget all other customers), will be another anti-Apple free-for-all, so have fun!

Re:Question already answered

[93 Escort Wagon]

On the contrary, would you like to be known as Tiffany Store Genius or Apple Store Genius?

Well, having just watched "Breakfast at Tiffany's" last night...

The store employee agreed to engrave a plastic ring for under ten bucks, and it wasn't even a Tiffany's ring. While it's true he did solve George Peppard's problem, Tiffany's probably wouldn't consider him a Genius since the net benefit to them was likely negative.

Re:Question already answered

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiffany Store Genius, because then I have a chance to bonk some rich trophy wife.

Re:Question already answered

[UnknowingFool]

Talk about apples and oranges. Working in Tiffany's is not working in an Apple store. How about something comparable instead. The article mentioned the average Apple salesman sells about $473K while average electronics is about $206K. I didn't read what the average electronics salesperson makes. If it isn't close to $11.25 starting (with benefits) after commissions then there isn't much room for discussion.

Re:Question already answered

[Khyber]

I'm a Sex Shop Genius.

I get hit on more than any Apple employee ever will, I get great discounts and free porn and free toys/lube, *AND* to top it off male and female co-workers are quite attractive.

In fact, one's coming over on her lunch break in 3 hours. ;)

Tips from customers as I get off work and leave the building (can't accept tips in-store on-clock) is a nice bonus, too! $50+ nightly.

And some of the stories I could tell you. No Apple employee has such privilege, I can guarantee this.

Why would I want to work at Apple?

Re:Question already answered

[Mabhatter]

You are SO going down for sexual harrassment! I can imagine the lawyers trying to write the HR policy for a sex toy shop.

I bet your Internet is STILL blocked. Free porn means your customers aren't paying for it!

Re:Question already answered

[Mabhatter]

And what kind of markup does Tiffany's have? Jewelry and fancy dresses have 100%+ markup at retail... Especially with a Tiffiany's logo.

Re:Question already answered

[Khyber]

Sheeeit, 50% of our sales comes from rentals because they don't wan't something trackable on computer. A few buy our no-trace drives loaded with porn, and also on occasion there's the buyer of DVDs/Blu-Ray because they want to display it on a big screen.

And no, sexual harassment is not so expected in this field. We're all freaks and flirt with each other all the time. Whether it gets serious or not is a different story (and one I have many of.)

Re:Question already answered

[UnknowingFool]

Yes but does a Tiffany employee get discounts on merchandise and benefits? All the posted said was that the average Tiffany employee makes more. That's not really a valid comparison. If there was a car dealership across the the 5th Ave Apple Store would it be a valid comparison. Are there Tiffany's across the street every Apple store?

Re:Question already answered

[guruevi]

Also, the comparison is kind of off - Tiffany's is a jeweler, a place where you want to compensate people enough so they don't compensate themselves. Also, I wouldn't hire any kid for my high-end jeweler store. Apple Store employee is just like any other store at the mall, $12/h is pretty high for a mall job, places like Old Navy or Radio Shack barely have their store managers make more than $12.

Re:Question already answered

[arkane1234]

Yeah, you'll be able to bonk some trophy wife's daughter who's coming in for her iPhone.

Re:Question already answered

[RulerOf]

We're all freaks and flirt with each other all the time. Whether it gets serious or not is a different story (and one I have many of.)

We, the users of Slashdot, would like to collectively subscribe to your newsletter.

I used to be AppleCare CPU T1

[Anonymous Coward]

at $0.50 CDN above minimum wage. Got screwed into Call Director (hit 0) wages because of a scheduling conflict. Seriously.

Worst thing is, it was that or McDonalds at minimum ($9.60 at the time)

Re:I used to be AppleCare CPU T1

[Anonymous Coward]

Call Director was a different department, basically operators. (Thus the "Hit 0") I was hired for tech support, but the training was full time and I was in university at the time. They told me when I was hired that the training was part time, this was changed at the last minute. It was a small town, so not many options for work.

They paid me as a call director, not the tech support pay. When I moved to tech support, they didn't increase my pay.

What a stupid time to post this drivel

[brunes69]

With US unemployment at a six month high and the global economy in the tank, a story comes out that people making > $11 / hour at the local Apple store have it hard off?

Pretty sure that there are 10 people waiting in the queue for every 1 job that opens up at one of these stores.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Volante3192]

Yes, making $11/hr means you've got it hard.

Contemplate the meaning of that for a moment. It's not just that we have high unemployment, it's that those WITH employment aren't getting anything close to a living wage. And you know what happens when you don't get a living wage? You have to go on welfare programs.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

So what makes you think that $11/hr is not a "living wage". I'm a bit curious because I currently make slightly more than that and have no trouble putting most of that money away.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you telling me that people cannot live on 22K/year?

Here is a man that raises his family of four on 27K/year: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/01/raising-a-family-on-under-2000-per-year/.

I live on 28K/year (making 90K/year, mind you!).

My two roommates live on the 12K/year stipend for their research.

My girlfriend lives on 15K/year.

None of us are on welfare. All of us have savings cushions. All of use drive our own (paid for) cars (between 15 and 4 years old, mine is the oldest). All of us can afford to do reasonable things: going to swim with dolphins this weekend, all of us have spent at least 1 week in a foreign country this past year, several of us have had theme-park weekends, and we each eat out of the house about once per week. We are not about to claim welfare.

Fuck you.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[jjohnson]

Care to break down your budget for us?

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

$1100 every two weeks before taxes. $600 stays in the bank (plus some taxes+EIC return at tax time). Secret is spending control.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[amoeba1911]

Here's the budget:
Rent: $0 - (living in parents' basement)
Food: $0 - (mom cooks)

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

khallow's weekly budget:

12.50x36 = $450 = $375 after taxes

1.) Cheese Doodles $15
2.) Rent to mom for basement: $25
3.) Mountain Dew: $15
4.) Savings: $320

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[interval1066]

Yeah... perhaps I'm not the most frugal of people in the world but I would have a hard time paying all bills and still having cash to put away at 11.00/hour... I would have to give up my car if I wanted to keep a roof over my head. Or I could give up my flat and live in my car I guess.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[drinkypoo]

The trick: Quit buying expensive stuff if you can.

No joke. I keep seeing these articles about $600 video cards where people are saying "Some of us only spend $350 on our video cards" and I'm about ready to shit myself. This is just one example of my fist-shaking-on-the-lawn, but seriously. My whole PC is made up of little more than $600 in parts, and I have six cores and enough video card to play any game out today, if not at top quality and top resolution simultaneously (and if it's new, certainly not.)

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Telvin_3d]

So, your total monthly expenses (including taxes) are less than $1500. That's pretty good. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of area you are living in.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Fjandr]

I quite agree. If someone cannot support themselves full time on $12/hr, they've made poor choices about where they live in relation to the work they are able to accomplish, or even poorer day-to-day or month-to-month money management choices.

My circumstances are seriously edge-case as concerns why my income is so low, but I have a good standard of living in a moderately-sized US city netting half that amount. Doubling my income would actually afford me private health insurance.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

Living in Yellowstone National Park. This is part of my spending control. If your labor isn't worth that much, then live somewhere where it goes further.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[DesScorp]

Yes, making $11/hr means you've got it hard.

Contemplate the meaning of that for a moment. It's not just that we have high unemployment, it's that those WITH employment aren't getting anything close to a living wage. And you know what happens when you don't get a living wage? You have to go on welfare programs.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Most Apple Store employees are young students or young workers living at home or sharing an apartment with others and splitting expenses. I really doubt that there's a lot of single parents supporting a whole family on Apple Store pay. So there goes your welfare jab. Getting outraged over this is like getting outraged at making just over minimum wage flipping burgers. If you want to make more money, learn a skill and become a higher valued worker.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[__aaltlg1547]

Try moving out of of Daddy's house.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cptdondo]

Budgets please. Unless you live in some total backwater, you can't live on $12K/yr, or $15K/yr without some form of assistance. Where I live a cheap apartment can cost $6K/yr. Groceries are easily $400/mo, so that doesn't leave enough to buy gas for one of your paid-for cars.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

Or live somewhere cheaper. If your labor really is worth $11 an hour, then you need to make some sacrifices. That's what I do. There are three things that get missed about living wages. First, if someone's labor isn't worth the living wage, then they get paid $0 per hour. That incidentally is the true minimum though obviously not "living" wage.

Second, a number of people not only are willing to work well below a "living wage", but can afford to. For example, if you're a spouse or dependent child of someone who's already working, then you can settle for less money, yet still make more than your expenses. But "living wage" advocates would rather these people stay unemployed.

Third, income is not static. Just because you earn less than living wage now doesn't mean you always will. Low wages are often part of entry level work and they tend to go up over time. I started below $8 per hour a few years ago and have worked up to my current level. I also gained a lot of valuable job experience. I couldn't get that by staying unemployed.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

Here's the budget:
Rent: $0 - (living in parents' basement)
Food: $0 - (mom cooks)

Not my situation (though I do have room and board nailed), but this is an important class of potential worker. Why should these people be unemployed because they are willing to work for less than "living wage" and frankly, not worth much more than what they are paid? Should we keep teenagers and such unemployed merely because some people can't live on $11 an hour?

Please consider the human cost of having a generation unemployed for years at a time. How are they going to get job experience? How are they going to learn how to run and not to run a business?

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[interval1066]

Or live somewhere cheaper.

Uh, ok, point taken, but I'm not going to make less money to make a point. Or feel good about myself. I feel pretty reasonable about my life making what I make. Haven't made less than $20/hour for years. I'm ok with this.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Skuld-Chan]

So you live in a tent and pump gas?

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[ColdWetDog]

Living in Yellowstone National Park. This is part of my spending control. If your labor isn't worth that much, then live somewhere where it goes further.

Ah, no wonder your cost of living is so reasonable. You're living on top of the next supervolcano. Won't make much difference how much you salt away if you are destined to be launched into the upper atmosphere in tiny little pieces....

There is always a catch.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Apple stores are there in Yellowstone National Park? How many other jobs are available in Yellowstone National Park?

How many Apple Stores are in cities like LA, SF and NY? How much do people working in those stores in those cities get paid - ~$12/hour according to the article.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[phantomfive]

They didn't get an apartment by themselves, they have roommates.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[geoskd]

Where I live, the cheapest living accommodations are $300 / month, and you don't go outside after dark. That gets you a bed in a room with a roommate, and you're sharing a four bedroom apt with 6 other people in the other three rooms. Your portion of the utilities is $100 / month in the winter and $50 in the summer. Food for one person will run you $450 / month, and public transport is $75 / month (lousy subsidies).

Now, $1100 every two weeks is not $11/hr, its $14 / hr. $11/ hr is $900. Take out 17% taxes + soc sec + every other thing, and you get $1500 / month total.

So yes, if you're willing to live in the worst slum, never own a car, never have any privacy or a family, never spend money on a social life, and commute 2 hours a day for an 8 hour shift (if you're lucky enough to get 8 hours, most service jobs are "part time" only to ensure employers don't have to provide full benefits.), you can put away about $500 / month. At that rate, when you are ready to retire, you will have about 250k in savings and no pension, very little if any social security income, and you'll have to hoard that $250k to pay for living in that same slum you have been in for the last 40 years.

Yay American dream.

Minimum wage in this country needs to go up a lot, and millionaires need to return to the days when they were expected to pay 75%+ of their income in taxes to support the society that has made them rich in the first place.

-=Geoskd

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

Groceries are easily $400/mo

Don't eat out much. Buy and cook in bulk. Save leftovers. Buy generic over brand name, etc. You can get that number down. I'd say $200 a month per person (and I bet there are slashdotters who could get that down to $100 a month per person!) is a good target for most of the developed world, unless you're in an unusually expensive location.

Such attempts at cost savings don't make much sense, if you earn a lot of income since they often take time to do and your time is more valuable doing other things.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[DogDude]

You're really fucking stupid if you can't live comfortably on $11/hour. I mean that. Really fucking stupid.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cptdondo]

Buying in bulk and such works if you have a group of people. The poster was claiming that his girlfriend could live on $15K/yr unassisted. Sharing rent expenses, sharing cooking expenses, etc. are all some form of assistance. Single portions in grocery stores are extremely expensive.

Here you can't get an apartment at all (unless it's in a drug infested dump) unless you can prove you make at least $35K/yr, or someone (university, mom) vouches for you. And roommates don't count; someone has to sign that makes that much. Getting someone to guarantee you will pay your bills counts as assistance in my book.

I'm not saying it's impossible to live on $15K/yr; I'm saying to do so you have to do some serious cost sharing with others and get assistance from someone somewhere, even if it's co-signing on the lease agreement.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Sir_Sri]

Two roomates pretty much sums it up.

That and actually spending 28k a year is a lot. That's equivalent to about 40k/year in before tax income (which is 20 bucks an hour).

The two on research grants only get 12k but they don't and aren't expected to be building a pension or unemployment for example. Nor would they be able to build equity in a property at that rate. On and if they're on research grants they probably have health care through their institutions, and they're living that badly (with no meaningful savings towards retirement) as an investment. It's not sustainable, but it's certainly viable short term.

Saying he 'lives' on 28k a year when he makes 90 is silly. He's only spending 28k a year (which is still more than his two roommates combined) but much of his 'not spent' income is actually going to be spent, when he buys a house, a car, or retires. 24k a year would not leave him much room to do that. Depending on where you live naturally.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[zippthorne]

If Yellowstone ever does go off, we're *all* gonna die. Those actually living on it will just get to skip the months of cold, starvation, and wars.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[geoskd]

Here is a man that raises his family of four on 27K/year: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/01/raising-a-family-on-under-2000-per-year/.

Look at his budget and then read through the line items. Hes talking about feeding a family of $450 / month. Where I live, Ramen, Chef-boy-are-dee, and Penut Butter and Jelly Sandwhiches run me that much for just me. Insurance $600 for car + home? My insurance is $1000 just for the house. Taxes, 0.6%? WTF, my home taxes are 3% and climbing, and anyone who thinks renters dont pay property taxes is just foolish. Health care $100 / month? My employer pays 80%, and my 20% for a family of four is $300 / month. Gas 316? for the year? Thats, what, all of ten gallons a year. Must be nice to live within biking distance of work, but all of that housing where i live is out of my price range by a wide margin.

So in short, he's living in an area with less than half the average cost of living, and saying that anyone can live on $30k? Fuck you Asshole.

-=Geoskd

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[dlp211]

I love the "if someone cannot support themselves on $12/hr" bullshit. You know most people support more then just themselves, they have kids, spouses etc. My wife makes 13 and change an hour. Her "full time" job comes in at 35 hours a week, just enough for her to be considered full time. After taxes and health insurance she brings home 650 every other week. Rent alone is 1200 a month, cheapest in our area, throw in $90 for cell service, another $90 for cable and internet plus another 100 for electricity and we have no money at the end of the month and we have the cheapest health plan they offer and if me, her, or our kids ever got severely sick/injured we'd be screwed. She has an education, in fact graduated top of her class but graduated 2007 as a teacher, so you see where that is going. The idea that 10, 11, 12, 13, or even 14 or 15 dollars an hour is a living wage is a joke. If I didn't have the Post 9/11 GI Bill coming in on top of her wages we would be going into a massive amount of debt so that I can get my engineering degree.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cptdondo]

$500/month for a 4 bedroom?????? WOW!!!!!

What are your building costs? On a 30 year note, that's roughly, what, $50K US to build a 4 bedroom apartment? So we're talking building/purchase costs of $50/sf? What part of the world are you in? 1950?

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cptdondo]

Also, he's got a $450K house paid for. At some point he was making a lot more than $30K/yr. Sure, if my house was paid for I could be holier than thou and pontificate about how wasteful you are.

The reality is most of us don't get $1M to play with by the time we're 37. So sir, take your holier than thou attitude and go fuck yourself.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[fredgiblet]

So everyone should live in a gated community no matter whether they have a PhD or just a HS diplomma? Is that what you're saying?

Nice strawman

What he's saying is simple, there are different costs of living in different areas. He's not talking about gated communities, he's talking about the difference in rent for a tiny apartment, the difference in price for food in different areas. A living wage in one area is a ticket to Welfare in another, simply based off of differences in prices.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[dlp211]

1200/month rent
300/month health insurance
200/month car insurance/renters/life insurance
200/month cell/cable/internet
100/month electricity

That is the basic break down of my budget. I have the cheapest insurance that I can get, the cheapest rent, the cheapest internet and cell service. The only thing we splurge on a little bit is the cable because I enjoy watching sports and the kids love the disney channels.

Total = 2000/month and we haven't even touched gas, food, car repair/maintenance. 11/hr * 40/hr/week * 4.3/weeks/month = $1862/month and that isn't even taking out taxes. Not everyone lives in bumfuck idaho, not everyone is single and at university. Some of us have families and can't just get up and move away when we feel like it.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[RubberDogBone]

Where did the idea EVER come from that you were supposed to get a job/situation like the one you describe and stay that way your entire life?

The plan should be, get a job. Keep that job until you can get a better one. When you can, get a better job and move up. Repeat as needed. It won't take most people more than a few years, a decade tops, to climb the job ladder into something that pays well and provides the base needed to raise a family and eventually retire. They can climb the ladder as high as ambition will take them.

Nobody is supposed to try to have a family and kids, and/or work their entire lives and try to retire off a job paying $11 an hour. THAT idea is repulsive. This country rewards people who get off their tails and think outside their self-imposed boxes (mental prison cells) and try to achieve something better. You have got to try.

Easy? No. Nobody promised easy. Just that it can be done if someone is willing to try.

Settling for less than that is the problem. Too many people peak at those low plateau jobs and never reach higher.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[timeOday]

Sure, you can live on $15K/year as a kid, supporting just yourself, if you're lucky enough to be in good health. But for a family of 4, health care premiums alone average over $15K / year. $15k minus $15k doesn't leave a lot for other essentials. ("Family of 4" is the most reasonable unit of sustainability, since two people with two kids on average equals a steady population.)

Like many people, I have "employer-provided" health care that pays a good chunk of the $15k, but that no longer means as much as it used to. My share of the premiums, plus co-pays and deductibles, would take the lion's share of that $15K in a year. The glory days of being insured and therefore having no risk of health care expenses is long gone for most people.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[linuxscrub]

This.

I think he and his wife were in the $150k-$200k area for at least 3-4 years before "retiring."

But, even so, if you add in $1500/month for mortgage (which will pay a pretty big loan), your in the $45k/year range, which is quite a bit more but not an obscene amount, but is a good salary (considering it must be after taxes).

LS

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

So your solution for the millions and millions of people living in cities and making shit wages is that they should move onto national parks and compete for a few hundred jobs, which also pay shit wages, because the cost of living's cheap? Won`t that drive the cost of living up (so you'll no longer be able to put those big $600 cheques into your savings account)? Of course, with the influx of people, will come an influx of industry to serve them, meaning more jobs, stores, etc. And they`ll have to build massive housing and infrastructure, and the cost of living will go up more to pay for it. So then I guess your `$1100 every 2 weeks` really won`t seem like a ``living wage`` anymore when you can`t even pay for rent and food without 3 roommates. (Do you see why your situation can`t work for everyone in the country?)

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cluedweasel]

Where do I start with this one? "Working hard?", "talent?". So folks working in fast food restaurants, cleaning businesses, pumping gas (I live in Oregon) don't work hard and don't deserve a living wage? Not everyone is lucky to have the chance, and talent, to be a surgeon, a software developer, an investment banker, etc. People shouldn't be consigned to a live of just scraping by just because you feel they're not worthy. Having access to decent housing, funds for your retirement, reasonable healthcare and some semblance of a live outside of work has bugger all to do with being wealthy. It should be the default option for anyone working in the U.S. By and large it is for anyone living in Scandinavia or western Europe.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cptdondo]

Where did the idea EVER come from that you were supposed to get a job/situation like the one you describe and stay that way your entire life?

That's the definition of a "living wage".

We in the US have taken up this "up or out" mentality where it's no longer possible to spend your life doing a simple task; you have to somehow "better yourself" in order to actually make a living wage.

So we start off at starvation wages, and if we can't make the cut we starve. Just listen to some of the rhetoric.

There's a lot of value in having an experienced person doing basic tasks, but we've forgotten that. Go to Europe, or Japan, and see what level of service you get there.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[JoeRandomHacker]

Dang. And my mod points just expired.
+1 Insightful, otherwise.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

Sharing rent expenses, sharing cooking expenses, etc. are all some form of assistance.

Sounds more like misused semantics to me than a credible argument. To me, assistance means providing help. In particular, with respect to financial matters, I think "assistance" means providing help without much in the way of return.

Here, it's simply exploiting economies of scale when more than one person buys stuff. In other words, mutual benefit from cooperating on such things. Else, any trade or financial transaction which benefits a party would similarly be "assistance". Eg, I provide assistance to the gas station owner when I buy gas. In such a case, almost everyone would be "assisting" almost everyone and the term wouldn't have much relevance.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

but I'm not going to make less money to make a point.

And you don't have to. I have no problem with people making vastly more than me. I'm ok with this.

What I have problems with is people who want to live in a certain place or have a certain lifestyle or enact a certain poorly thought out idea, and force employers to pay for that.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Smurf]

With US unemployment at a six month high [...]

Wait... what?

The US unemployment in March, April, and May was 8.2, 8.1, and 8.2% respectively. Although that is certainly way too high, is is by far not the highest in the last six months. In fact, it's the lowest since January 2009.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Noone Thirty]

Admittedly there's some ambiguity, but I believe the word "each" in his post implies that four people are each paying 6K per year.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in colorado springs.... not exactly a cheap place to live...

My mortgage for my house is about $950/month
Utilities: roughly $100/month in the summer, $150 winter
Cell phone: $80/month
Gas: $100/month (I drive an hour each way - geo metro & 51mpg)
Food: depends... let's say $100/month (if I cooked, it'd be MUCH less)
Car Insurance: $25/month
Total cost: $1405

Don't preach SOCIAL LIFE OMG

I get paid roughly $65k/year -- Yes, life is about spending control. Spare me the lecture of OMG $1500/month isn't enough to live on. My total monthly bills do not exceed one paycheck. I take home a shade under $1500 every two weeks. I contribute 10% to my retirement and save at least a grand a month. I've made much less and made it work for a very long time. I don't live on credit, don't have a car loan, and I made it through college (bachelors degree) without student loans. Life is very much indeed spending control.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

No. My solution is far more realistic. If you can't make it in the big, expensive city, then get the fuck out. Yellowstone is far from the only cheap place out there.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

if you are destined to be launched into the upper atmosphere in tiny little pieces....

Sometime in the next few hundred thousand years. And that's only if I ignore the warning signs, such as years to decades of precursor events, humongous volcanic eruptions, and such.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Space cowboy]

One of us doesn't understand capitalism.

"If you (1) work hard and (2) have the talent, you can achieve greatness."

This sounds pretty much like the ideal statement of how to get on in a capitalistic society. You need to put the effort in, and you need to have intrinsic value. If you don't have *both* of those, you're screwed. That's how capitalism works - it's a re-definition of "selfishness" as applied to the working environment because the crux of the system is that the workforce is working for private owners, not the government. Those private owners do their best to exploit their employees to maximize their profit, because, well, they think the money ought to be in *their* hands rather than their employees.

Your plea is that not everyone has intrinsic value, and so they are screwed; that's not fair to them and ought not be tolerated (which I agree with, for what it's worth). Unfortunately, what you're suggesting is that the US adopt a more-socialist outlook, and the raving loonies on the right, as well as a lingering distrust of communism (unfortunately conflated with socialism) from the US-vs-Russia days make that ... unlikely.

Socialism isn't the worst thing in the world. Example: in the UK, when a car hit me on my motorbike, the police, fire brigade (the bike was in flames) and ambulance were there in minutes (these are all socialised services), I was taken to hospital, operated on, cared for and released a week or so later. Cost to me at the time: $0 - healthcare is socialised as well - everyone pays a little (much less than I pay for health insurance in the US now, for example) and no-one ever goes bankrupt because of medical fees... In addition, I obtained grants (from the government) to go to college, and the govt. paid me to do a PhD, not the other way around. This is more socialism.

The UK is still a capitalistic society because capitalism is a fine way to harness the innate desire to better oneself. I'm happy about this - I was free to create a startup company, go bust, create another and sell it for a handsome profit - in a non-capitalistic society that would have been far harder to do. I do like the socialist safety nets that underpin UK society though, my theory goes like this: capitalism is like a fine blade - it's a lot better when it's tempered. The problem for a lot of Americans seems to be that one uses Socialism to temper Capitalism, then you get the best of both worlds by treading the middle-path rather than veering too far to the right or to the left. As it stands, the US is in danger of veering so far to the right that I'm not even sure it could come back without some major upheaval in US society. This is the major reason I haven't switched citizenship - I used to joke that retaining my UK citizenship (even though I'm married with a kid) was the fallback plan. It's not a joke any more, I doubt my long-term future is in the US - once I've made enough cash, we'll probably be off.

Simon.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

If Yellowstone ever does go off, we're *all* gonna die. Those actually living on it will just get to skip the months of cold, starvation, and wars.

That's nonsense. Sure, if we ignore the obvious signs and don't prepare, then sure, most of us could die in resource wars or under thick ashfalls. But even a bad supervolcano eruption is a foreseeable event. And we can prepare for it with food storage, evacuation plans, and a sensible resettlement plan.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Mabhatter]

In most of the country $11 ($22k per year) is an OK factory job. If you have a roommate and marry her, the sex and dating is cheaper and she still pays half the rent. Two jobs at $11 put you at just about the per capita household median (about $44k) in the USA.

Why do you think one auto worker at $19/hr with 60 hr weeks is such a "good thing"? That's almost enough money mom doesn't have to work, or if she does it buys "toys" (or private school, babysitters, second car,etc) They also get pension and health insurance so that makes them terrible greedy bastards!

$11/hr jobs are what the politicians are promising us!!! THAT is the Great Recovery. Even though Romney made minimum "living wage" in Mass. Higher than $11/hr and required you to carry health insurance, he doesn't think. That is the right plan for ALL of America now. When you hear them complain about taxes at $250k being "unfair" remember that HALF of the households operate on $44k or less. THAT is what the 99% thing is all about.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Mabhatter]

Well you only pay tax on PROFIT. Beyond living expenses that's pretty easy to knock down. Of course a good portion of millionaire wealth is held in securities or company ownership and while they may HAVE millions, they only RECIEVE $100k a year that they live off.

That group is where most of the Tea Party crowd is from in my opinion. That $70-$100k a year has went from being RICH in the 90s when they peaked, to being just "better than average" and they have no children, no college to pay, home paid off, so no real deductions... they are single people sitting on a lot of money (when per capita household is $44k)

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Anubis IV]

Quick notes:
1) You're clearly not used to being frugal in your spending for food. You can pretty comfortably survive at under $150/mo. for food (I just noticed another responder to you says they're at $100/mo. comfortably). You can eat out for lunch and dinner pretty regularly for under $300/mo. if you're careful with where you go and what you purchase. I know, because I've done both of those within the last few years.

2) Minimum wage jobs are not the end goal. They are a way stay afloat while you find something better. That might just be a better position at the store (in this case, maybe a Genius?) or it might be investing in an education. In my case, I did it to get through grad school. Now I have an awesome job with great benefits.

3) Minimum wage is not for achieving the American Dream. It's more like a weed-out class for the American Dream. Remember, the American Dream is not owed to anyone. It must be worked for and reached towards. That means working your way out of the entry-level, low-skill, minimum wage position and moving on to something better. And then moving on to the thing after that. And again. Suggesting that everyone pulling minimum wage should be entitled to the American Dream for staying there and never growing beyond that is silly.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Anubis IV]

Where I live, Ramen, Chef-boy-are-dee, and Penut Butter and Jelly Sandwhiches run me [$450/mo.] for just me.

I call BS unless you're on the ISS orbiting earth. Where are you living that food is so much more expensive than it is for everyone else? There's no reason to need $15/day on food unless you're indulging yourself.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[arkane1234]

$1,100 every 2 weeks means $1,100 / 80 hours = $13.75/hr.

There's a bit of a difference between $11/hr & $13.75/hr. like $2.75/hr difference...

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[arkane1234]

"Gated community" is not a good thing.
It's synonymous with an apartment.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Zagnar]

$400? Are you eating caviar for every meal? It used to be that I was able to get by on $100 per month, it's a bit more now that I'm eating healthy and working out. Beans, Peanut butter, pastas and multivitamins are most of my diet, though there's always pot roasts of carrots, potatoes and cheap steak. Oatmeal is excellent for fiber and plenty of dishes with veggies can be made cheaply.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

I can't speak for him, but I'll break down my budget for you and the GP (I live in the greater Cincinnati area)
I rent a house with a roommate, $500/month covers my rent and utilities.
Car payment: $200/month (2005 Honda Accord, ~100K miles, in good shape)
Car/motorcycle insurance: $70/month (motorcycle is paid for)
Gas: $150/month (more in winter, less in summer, thanks to motorcycle)
Groceries: $200/month
College loans: $300/month
Credit card bills from undergrad: $100/month
Cell: $40/month (T-Mobile)
Total: $1560/month

I'm currently looking to ditch the roommate, I expect about a $300 increase in rent and utilities to move into a 2-bedroom apartment by myself.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

You forgot one thing:

WoW subscription: $15

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

You forgot one other point - if you can't afford kids yet, don't have them.

Coat hangers are surprisingly cheap, these days.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

How the hell do you spend $400/month on groceries? That's $4/meal, EVERY meal. Two bowls of cereal in the morning should cost you a buck, maybe a buck and a half. Buy a 5# bag of chicken for $8, a bag of pasta for $4, and a bottle of tomato sauce for $2.50, and you have $1.25 full-dinner meals. You could even have a beer with every meal, and still be cutting your food bill in half.

Hell, if you had two bowls of cereal every morning, made sandwiches for lunch, you could have an $8 steak for dinner every single night!

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[kenh]

"Minimum wage in this country needs to go up a lot, and millionaires need to return to the days when they were expected to pay 75%+ of their income in taxes to support the society that has made them rich in the first place."

When the government assessed "millionaires" (which meant people making over $150K/year, the cutoff for the top tax rate - there was no special "millionaire rate") the "millionaires" figured out how to hide their income to lower their tax bills, when the rates are lower there's less incentive to try and hide income.

How many jobs will be lost for every dollar the minimum wage increases? What, you think increasing the wage paid to stock boys in grocery stores won't reduce the number of clerks on the payroll?

If a person works their entire career at minimum wage how many millions should they have for retirement?

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

Hes talking about feeding a family of $450 / month. Where I live, Ramen, Chef-boy-are-dee, and Penut Butter and Jelly Sandwhiches run me that much for just me

Buy your ramen from Amazon. 41 cents/pack, free shipping. Chef Boyardee, $1/can. Free shipping. Jelly and peanut butter are similarly priced. I just cut $350 from your monthly budget. $1400 if you feed the wife and two kids the same way (I don't recommend it).

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[kenh]

So you are choosing to live off your wife's low wages because you want to be an engineer someday.

That is not a typical situation, most people with spouses that earn that little and have no children (since you didn't mention any and failed to list child care as an expense) would take it upon themselves to get a job and contribute to the family budget.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

So. . . if you have a family, wifey gets a job at the Apple store with you, and your monthly income is $3724/month, before taxes. Gas, food, car repair suddenly become a lot easier with that spare $1000 after taxes. And if you don't have parents around to provide free babysitting, split your shifts - that's the single best thing about working retail stores, that the hours are so very flexible.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[tycoex]

Why did you decide to have a family before you got a good job?

Get the job first, then get to making babies. We have enough people on the planet as it is.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Kergan]

Nobody is supposed to try to have a family and kids, and/or work their entire lives and try to retire off a job paying $11 an hour. THAT idea is repulsive. This country rewards people who get off their tails and think outside their self-imposed boxes (mental prison cells) and try to achieve something better. (...)

Where did the idea EVER come from you that unicorns gallop down rainbows while crapping skittles?

In the real world, individuals don't have skills in such high demand that they can flip jobs like you seem to be doing. Normal people have the career prospects of being on minimum wage until they retire. Typically, they put on just enough debt to remain in debt slavery until they die. HR managers aren't exactly banging at their door with a better offer.

You have got to try.

Easy? No. Nobody promised easy. Just that it can be done if someone is willing to try.

Settling for less than that is the problem. Too many people peak at those low plateau jobs and never reach higher.

In the real world, many people fail miserably when they start a business, and they lose part or all of their savings in the process -- or their family's savings. Many of those that fail come out so wrecked that they just never bounce back. If your retirement savings are $250 at age 60, I'd wager you're probably happy you didn't lose it all at age 40. Because for every person you know who made it rich, you know another who tried just as hard and made it in the street.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[mal0rd]

There's a lot of value in having an experienced person doing basic tasks, but we've forgotten that. Go to Europe, or Japan, and see what level of service you get there.

I agree with the rest of your comment, but I don't get this part. Service in Europe is horrible; it's one of the few things I miss about the states.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[geoskd]

You should have read the column for "after 3% inflation". Then its at 1,100 / month, less than what he earned with working. And for the record, the calculator showed 750k with a 5% ROI. That's relatively high risk investment, and you wont get that much over the life of the person because at some point in 40 years, the market will tank and he will be unemployed and the investment rate will go negative. In short you read the results wrong, and made some majorly impractical assumptions. I hope you dont fail as utterly with your own retirement planning.

-=Geoskd

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[geoskd]

Where did the idea EVER come from that you were supposed to get a job/situation like the one you describe and stay that way your entire life?

because ~75% of jobs in the US are service sector jobs like the ones we have been discussing.

How do you get a better job when all the other jobs around you are pretty much the same as the one you have?

-=Geoskd

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[makomk]

Of course, if he did do that, then a few decades down the line when he was still stuck in a minimum-wage job with no prospects it'd be his fault for not taking the opportunity to better himself when he should've. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[geoskd]

1) You're clearly not used to being frugal in your spending for food. You can pretty comfortably survive at under $150/mo. for food (I just noticed another responder to you says they're at $100/mo. comfortably). You can eat out for lunch and dinner pretty regularly for under $300/mo. if you're careful with where you go and what you purchase. I know, because I've done both of those within the last few years.

I live in a place where food is hideously expensive. I don't really know why, but even the milk costs >$4 per gallon. The lowest grade of hamburger is $3.99 per pound. Pasta runs about $1.60 a small box. My parents live about an hour away and everything costs half as much out there. I'm stuck a lot closer to the city though.

2) Minimum wage jobs are not the end goal. They are a way stay afloat while you find something better. That might just be a better position at the store (in this case, maybe a Genius?) or it might be investing in an education. In my case, I did it to get through grad school. Now I have an awesome job with great benefits.

No, minimum wage was created so that society did not need to actively support the bottom social class all the time. When it was first created, it worked ok. Now, it has failed to keep up with cost of living and as such is too low. Much too low.

-=Geoskd

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[geoskd]

How many jobs will be lost for every dollar the minimum wage increases? What, you think increasing the wage paid to stock boys in grocery stores won't reduce the number of clerks on the payroll?

No, it wont, that is not how hourly jobs work. You cant just cut jobs and still get the same amount of work done with hourly jobs. So, one of two things will happen. First, the employer will take a reduction in profit. Second, the employer will raise prices for product, increasing the cost to the general public, and driving inflation. As long as the minimum wage keeps up with inflation, then this is not a bad thing. Inflation is effectively a flat tax, and with a minimum wage in place, the bottom is automatically exempted from it.

-=Geoskd

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[geoskd]

Ok, I'll play:

1. You didn't account for raises and promotions. If someone worked at an apple store for 30 years then I would expect them to at least attain manager level at some point. If they don't get promoted then it would be safe to assume that they are a scrub employee and deserve their minimum wage.

Almost everyone I know in the service sector has to put up with nasty working conditions designed to drive turnover.This is deliberate for the sake of keeping wages low. My employer does it too. Promotion? My employer *requires* a bachelors degree to become a supervisor (for a $2.00 /hr bump). That is in spite of the fact that being a supervisor here requires no higher education skills at all: No math, no writing ability, nothing. Promotion is not an option unless you want to tack a 100k debt onto that budget we drew up.

2. If you are trying to support yourself on a minimum wage job, then living with your parents might be a better option then you're ridiculous living set up that you outlined above.

Not everyone has parents in a position to help them. I know a guy who did just that though, moved back in with his mom. He was living in a room with his two brothers until the landlord found out and had to throw them out for being over occupancy, and getting his Occupancy permit revoked.

3. You're acting like minimum wage is set up to allow people live very comfortably. Clearly its not when its offered to people who are still in high school. Its low level, unskilled labor.

Thats not what it was meant to be when it was created. It was meant to ensure that average Americans could get a job that paid enough to live on; hence living wage.

4. Apple isn't open during the night. Get a second job bussing, hosting or waiting tables. My parents worked multiple jobs while taking college classes at night, supported themselves on that absurdly low minimum wage that you depicted above. Don't even start to say that its too many hours to work 2 jobs. People on salary constantly put in over 40 hours a work. Lawyers and Accountants going for their exam spend 8 hours in the office every day, 4 hours 2 times a week in a class for their certification and extra time studying on their own. Bottom line is everyone has to work their ass off.

Meanwhile 10% of the country is unemployed. Don't get me started about Mandatory unpaid overtime, its the biggest crime in American business. Just cut 1/3 of the staff and make the remaining people work 50% longer hours for no additional pay. (3) Profit! People cant leave because if they are lucky enough to find another job, that employer did the same thing already, so the job is 60+ hours / week no matter where you go. All in the name of almighty profit.

5. Not going to get involved with the 75% tax you support other than this: It would bring the private sector to a grinding halt, which based on statements seems to be what you want.

No it wont, it will have very little affect on anyone except the very wealthy, for whom it will mean a smaller inheritance for their children. Our country had taxes at that level during the industrial revolution, and it didn't stop our economy one bit. Germany has taxes even higher than that *right now*, and their economy is the only one in Europe not in serious trouble. The FUD you just spewed is the rhetoric the wealthy use so they don't have to choose between leaving their kids millions in inheritance or that new 75 foot super-yacht they want.

-=Geoskd

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cptdondo]

I guess it depends on which part of Europe; I spend a lot of time in a small town in the Czech Republic and service there is very good. Even in Prague outside the tourist areas it's pretty good. You have a lot of old timers who kept their skills and passed them on even under Communism.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

If you don't value the effort of desperate people willing to work no matter what the price, your value goes down too.

So another reason to reduce or eliminate living wages. It reduces our value as well.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

So folks working in fast food restaurants, cleaning businesses, pumping gas (I live in Oregon) don't work hard and don't deserve a living wage?

Why do you think "working hard" means you should get a "living wage"? It should be about the value you provide, not the motions you go through. Instead, I think the simpler solution is to get a better job, if you don't like the current one.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[the_B0fh]

pssst: I have certain knowledge that we're all going to die whether Yellowstone goes off or not...

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[msobkow]

Welfare and disability programs are what North America implements as their "social" programs. Canada fares slightly better than the US in that we have socialized medicine and no lifetime limits to medical benefits, but those who are employed cover that expense through higher taxes than I used to pay in the US.

But on either side of the border, if you're unlucky enough to become disabled (as I have: chronic, severe migraines), the "social safety net" means looking forward to a lifetime of poverty. Sure I get enough to pay for basic expenses, but I only have about $100/month left over to cover "extras" like clothing, furniture, or "toys".

I don't own a TV so I don't have a cable bill, but if I did, that would mean I'd only have about $50/month left over for food and clothes. Yay torrents!

I spent 30 years programming. I made good money, but lived in high priced areas and wasn't able to save a lot. When I was finally unable to work for a living, my savings lasted me two years. I've never owned a home because I had to move every 2-3 years, so tying myself down with property would have been foolish.

Socialism is a great concept, but the reality is that everyone I know who lives in countries that are more "socialist" than Canada also live pretty much at the poverty line. They can look forward to a lifetime of subsistance living. Granted, having a place to live at all is a benefit, but quite frankly, you don't want to live in the neighbourhoods you can afford to live in on social services or disability in Canada. And if you move to a small town thinking to save money, you'll find your benefits cut because the rents aren't so high, so you still end up living in slum conditions.

if you can call it "living."

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[sir-gold]

You assume there is a better job, and you assume that you are likely to get that job instead of the 200 other people who applied for that same job. This is made even worse when several of those 200 people are related to someone already working at the company.

People don't work fast food because they WANT to, they work it because it's the best job they could get. (it's hard to find a better job when there are 10-times more job-seekers than jobs)

A few years ago, I applied for one of 7 positions open for machine operator work at an oil-pan factory in Manitowoc WI. they were getting applications at the rate of 200 PER HOUR. (and they were taking apps for 3 days)

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[GeorgeMonroy]

If you want to eat healthy then good luck buying groceries for $200 month per person. We rarely buy anything in the aisles where all of the crap food is. We mostly shop in the produce, meat and dairy sections you know the refrigerated sections. You cannot buy vegetables in bulk as they only last so long. To eat healthy is expensive. We don't even go for the "healthy" health nut products. We range anywhere from $300-$400 a month per person to eat healthy. So yeah if you want to eat like crap then by all means spend $200 a month per person. It takes money to eat healthy.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[pianophile]

Groceries: $200/month

You eat three meals a day, for a month, on that $200? This figure alone causes me to suspect that you are unusually frugal, i.e. never eating out, always brown-bagging lunch, no pre-prepared food, lots of very simple, home-cooked fare, etc. Not an impossible lifestyle, but an usual one these days, in this country.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[DogDude]

Having a family to support and living in a very expensive city and paying for cable TV on $11/hour? I'd say that fits perfectly into my previous statement.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Uberbah]

The US unemployment in March, April, and May was 8.2, 8.1, and 8.2% respectively. Although that is certainly way too high, is is by far not the highest in the last six months. In fact, it's the lowest since January 2009.

Because those are the cooked U3 numbers that just forget about workers if they've been unemployed long enough. The more realistic - and honest - U6 unemployment rate has never dropped below 14% since Obama took office.

The other fact usually left out of the storyline: anything less than 200,000 new jobs a month is an increase in the unemployment rate - because we need that many new jobs just to keep up with population increases.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Uberbah]

Get the job first, then get to making babies. We have enough people on the planet as it is.

So only the rich and middle-middle class are allowed to have families now? Aren't you guys just a bushel of peaches.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[mmcxii]

What are you eating if you're only paying 3.30 dollars a day for food but you're not cooking?

I stand by you people who are claiming that you're not paying 400 dollars a month for food because it is an outrageous number but I'm guessing that 2 burritos, a nachos and a coke is 5 bucks at Taco Bell. I find it hard to believe you can eat without cooking for 3.30.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

Of course I'm frugal, I'm trying to live on $2000/month. I eat out once per paycheck, it's my celebration.

And I'm a bachelor, so yes, it's very definitely "simple fare."

But yes, that's exactly what's wrong with this country - no one bothers to live within their means anymore.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

You assume there is a better job, and you assume that you are likely to get that job instead of the 200 other people who applied for that same job.

That is a fair assumption to make.

People don't work fast food because they WANT to, they work it because it's the best job they could get.

If true, then they should be happy with what they have. Sounds like cutting back on their expenses would be more productive than griping that they aren't getting paid more.

A few years ago, I applied for one of 7 positions open for machine operator work at an oil-pan factory in Manitowoc WI. they were getting applications at the rate of 200 PER HOUR. (and they were taking apps for 3 days)

Sounds to me like either you were a really good fit at that job or the application was a waste of your time. Either way, so what? Apply to stuff where you're more competitive.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[cptdondo]

Exactly. Because, for example, in Japan those people are happy to live with their parents in the same house in the same neighborhood working the same job, riding the same peddle bicycle to work at the same place their father and grandfather worked. They understand that their individual role in life is to always be poor and lower-class.
>

Been to Japan lately? Like in the last 30 years? The standard of living is higher than in the US.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Smurf]

With US unemployment at a six month high [...]

The US unemployment in March, April, and May was 8.2, 8.1, and 8.2% respectively. Although that is certainly way too high, is is by far not the highest in the last six months. In fact, it's the lowest since January 2009.

Because those are the cooked U3 numbers that just forget about workers if they've been unemployed long enough. The more realistic - and honest - U6 unemployment rate has never dropped below 14% since Obama took office.

The other fact usually left out of the storyline: anything less than 200,000 new jobs a month is an increase in the unemployment rate - because we need that many new jobs just to keep up with population increases.

Wow, way to absolutely miss the point of my reply to brunes69. According to the site you linked to, the U6 unemployment rate in January 2009 was 14.2%. From February 2009 to Frebruary 2012 it was never bellow 14.9% (in fact it was never bellow 15.1% except in February 2012). In March, April, and May 2012 it was 14.5%, 14.5%, 14.8%.

Therefore, what I said still holds true even if you use the U6 unemployment rate. What did I say? Oh yes:

Although that is certainly way too high, is is by far not the highest in the last six months. In fact, it's the lowest since January 2009.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[sir-gold]

You assume there is a better job, and you assume that you are likely to get that job instead of the 200 other people who applied for that same job.

That is a fair assumption to make.

People don't work fast food because they WANT to, they work it because it's the best job they could get.

If true, then they should be happy with what they have. Sounds like cutting back on their expenses would be more productive than griping that they aren't getting paid more.

A few years ago, I applied for one of 7 positions open for machine operator work at an oil-pan factory in Manitowoc WI. they were getting applications at the rate of 200 PER HOUR. (and they were taking apps for 3 days)

Sounds to me like either you were a really good fit at that job or the application was a waste of your time. Either way, so what? Apply to stuff where you're more competitive.

There is only so far you can cut your expenses (you can't really get lower than $400/mo for rent, for example), and it's pretty tough to meet basic needs when you make $7.25 an hour and only get 20-30 hours a week ($650-950/mo before taxes). There is a reason why the new-hire paperwork at walmart includes medicare and food-stamp applications. Simply "being happy with what you have" is fine, but gets rather difficult when you can't even cover your own basic needs (let alone save for the future, or raise a family).

I suspect you have never actually been truly poor before. (like, 'going to the food shelf', or 'selling blood plasma to pay rent' poor)

And the story about the factory job (which I didn't get due to lack of machine-operator experience) was only included to illustrate how much competition there was for so few jobs.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

and it's pretty tough to meet basic needs when you make $7.25 an hour and only get 20-30 hours a week ($650-950/mo before taxes).

Then get a better job.

I suspect you have never actually been truly poor before. (like, 'going to the food shelf', or 'selling blood plasma to pay rent' poor)

Well, yes, I save money and have a basic degree of financial competence. I don't do alcohol or drugs. And I live within my means.That rules out most cases of "truly poor" right there.

And the story about the factory job (which I didn't get due to lack of machine-operator experience) was only included to illustrate how much competition there was for so few jobs.

No it doesn't. Most applications such as yours could be tossed right away because they didn't have the qualifications that the employer was looking for. Look I'm not so great at looking for work, but it's out there even in today's climate. And I think it's a bad idea to waste time on high competition jobs where you can figure out at the start that you're not part of the competition.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Wovel]

Sharing is not assistance.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Wovel]

You live in a million dollar house or way overpay for homeowners insurance. You are also terrible at math (See your gas calculation). Perhaps your poor math skills are why you are so easily bilked into overpaying for everything.

By the way, a case of ramen (36 packages) can be had for under $15. You must eat over 10 gallons of peanut butter and 200 cans of pasta a month. By the way, eating a highly marketed name brand pasta would not be the choice of a budget concious shopper. Look in the bean and pasta aisles at the large bags of product without the fleshly logo.

Maybe you should get out in the world more before you start questioning others.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[IwantToKeepAnon]

So what makes you think that $11/hr is not a "living wage". I'm a bit curious because I currently make slightly more than that and have no trouble putting most of that money away.

Not a "living wage" means you can't work at Apple and afford Apple products. Now that's tragic.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Uberbah]

Wow, way to absolutely miss the point of my reply to brunes69.

Your post was absolutely easy to understand. That was your first problem.

According to the site you linked to, the U6 unemployment rate in January 2009 was 14.2%. From February 2009 to Frebruary 2012 it was never bellow 14.9% (in fact it was never bellow 15.1% except in February 2012). In March, April, and May 2012 it was 14.5%, 14.5%, 14.8%.

Which is why I said the U6 unemployment rate had never dipped below 14% since Obama took office. My, aren't you a quick one.

Although that is certainly way too high, is is by far not the highest in the last six months. In fact, it's the lowest since January 2009.

In fact, that's total nonsense unless you're using cooked numbers, and not even the better-than-U3 U6 numbers tell the whole story. Which is really quite simple:

Have we created new jobs to replace the ones lost during the crash?
Have we created an average of 200,000 jobs a month since Obama took office?

The answer to both of these questions is an obvious "no". Which means that unemployment is worse now than it was in January 2009. Obviously.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[jwhitener]

Fed Minimum Wage facts

"1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers. "

"Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less."

Trying to live on your own after college on minimum wage is hard. But even harder hit are those 50% of minimum wage earners who are over 25, and likely will not (or cannot) get higher paying jobs. Lack of education, disabilities, etc..

Would you rather have 2.5% of our workforce permanently earning a non-living wage, using various forms of welfare, or would you rather have the cost of some luxury goods (retail, restaurants, etc..) go up slightly, and those minimum wage workers paying more tax, buying more things, and generally helping to stimulate the economy?

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[khallow]

I think I understand the point quite well. And I'll just say this. If you can argue rationally on Slashdot, then you're never going to "understand" (in the vague, touchie feelie sense of the original poster) the plight of the "truly poor" because you will never be as poor as they are, even if all of your wealth is stripped from you.

I don't take such sentiments seriously because it's likely claiming that one has to be stupid in order to understand stupid.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[rjstanford]

Cost to me at the time: $0 - healthcare is socialised as well - everyone pays a little (much less than I pay for health insurance in the US now, for example) and no-one ever goes bankrupt because of medical fees..

Amusingly (to me - I'm another UK expat living in the US) the tax situation isn't all that bad either. I did this math back in late 2009 so it should still be pretty current now:

  I'll compare the tax burden on someone making USD 80,000 and GBP 50,000 - I know they're not completely comparable, but its a rough note. I'm ignoring a lot of minor taxes/fees here.

The US individual pays $16,188 in federal income taxes and $6,120 in FICA/Medicare taxes. This gives them a take home pay of $57,692. Their employer also pays $6,120 in FICA/Medicare taxes, for a total cost of $86,120.

The UK individual pays £9,930 in income tax, and £4,258 in NI (national insurance). This gives them a take home pay of £35,812. Their employer pays £5,668 in NI, for a total cost of £55,668.

Let's convert those UK numbers into their USD variants at the same rate, just for fun:

The UK individual pays $15,888 in income tax, $300 less than their US counterpart, and $6,812 in NI, or $692 more. This gives them a take home pay of $57,299, $392 less than the US guy (only 1/2 of 1% less). Their employer pays $9,068 in NI, for a total cost of $89,068, which is $2,948 or 3.5% more than the US cost.

The big difference here, of course, is that the US employee still has absolutely no health care. Reasonable coverage for a single person in good health easily consumes that $3,000 difference - and that's ignoring any family obligations, what happens when they're laid off, etc.

Finally, the total tax burden in the UK is about 37% of GDP, compared to about 27% in the US, but the UK numbers include comprehensive healthcare and the US ones do not. In the US, healthcare costs (including insurance company overhead) run about 17.5% of GDP (some of which is government covered, but less than half). If you add in 9% to represent a conservative estimate of non-government-paid healthcare costs in the US, then you get within 1%-of-GDP of the UK... again, pretty much the same cost.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Fjandr]

I do support someone else as well.

So still not buying it.

Children are a choice.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[Fjandr]

That would fall under the latter half of my statement.

Rather than roll the dice with a loan and guessing where the economy is going to be 4 or more years later, there's this thing people used to do (some still do) to get through college when they didn't have parents with money, GI benefits, or stellar academics: worked through college using whatever means were available. Night classes, community college classes, half-time, quarter-time, whatever.

There are hardship exceptions I've heard that I actually believe, but most cases I've heard (directly or indirectly) involve someone who made a choice to do something with readily identifiable consequences not requiring the benefit of hindsight to see. Gambling is something you should do for fun, not complain about, or do not at all.

I can guarantee, unless you can't spare a single hour every day (with practice, a half hour), that you could cut your grocery bill in half immediately. Actually cooking, instead of reheating/reconstituting, has a vast number of benefits, of which cost is a single one. More than likely, your energy level and arteries would thank you too. You're at home, so it probably wouldn't be that difficult to work something out between yourself and your parent(s). If you're on good enough terms with them to be living rent-free, you can probably come together to slash your (and their) food budget. Even without cooperation, you can certainly do a number on your own, barring exceptional circumstances.

You get $72 more a month in lump sum, since the standard deduction and personal exemptions cover the entirety of your pay. Unless you're living in one of the really abusive income tax states, you're also probably (or should be) getting most of the state income tax back as well. That right there can knock off one loan payment, bringing the rest to about $600/month if you're only getting the Federal money back. Better if, as I suspect, you can also get some or most of your state taxes back.

As for the loans, that sucks. That's a gamble you made and are currently losing. On the bright side, in the long run you'll almost certainly make up for it unless your degree is in the liberal arts.

You can at least bring your current situation to temporary parity. It's highly unlikely that, with some creativity, more cannot be found in there.

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[scot4875]

And that problem exists for all the other cheap places as well. Certainly your solution is more realistic than the reductio ad absurdum that the GP AC suggests, but it still fails to take into account the tragedy of the commons.

--Jeremy

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[scot4875]

Buy your ramen from Amazon. 41 cents/pack, free shipping.

Holy shit. I've never resorted to a Ramen diet, but back when I was working at WinCo (regional supermarket) in the late 90s, there were regularly deals for Maruchan Ramen for less than $0.10/pack. (In fact, I think during back-to-school rushes it would generally be $0.03/pack) I find it difficult to believe that $0.41/pack is now considered a "good" price.

--Jeremy

Re:What a stupid time to post this drivel

[MagusSlurpy]

It has increased in price enormously. A good deal at the supermarket these days, at least in Cincinnati, is a quarter per pack - and like you said, in 1999, it was a dime a pack, at least on sale. I'm sure we could find a better price than Amazon's if we tried, but fifteen seconds was about all the effort I was willing to put into that post.

$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? They have no specialized skill. It's a basic retail job. Some people in the US would kill for $12 an hour. And you even get to hang out in the air-conditioning. Give me a break.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just mention "Apple" and all the iHating, whining trolls that are typical of /. come out of their pits.

That's a good starting wage for a retail job. Compare that to any other store and one will find that Apple pay's their base workers quite well.

But no... it's "Apple" that's being discussed so just hate for the sake of hating.

Crybabies.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[grif_91]

I second this. I work as a corrections officer in Kansas, working with >800 inmates Minimum to Maximum security inmates five days a week, and I only make $12.98/hour, with very bleak outlook in the way of raises.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Sir_Sri]

very bleak outlook in the way of raises.

So you're basically trapped then unless you can change jobs or move your job somewhere else.

What the TFA isn't great at explaining is what the average salary growth profile looks like for an apple store employee. It mentions a guy who got a 49 cent raise one year, and then 2.82 the next year. It does say the average tenure is 2 and a half years, so it seems like the retail side is mostly intended for people trying to sustain themselves minimally until they move on to a real job that can be a career.

In your case there aren't a lot of choices. Corrections officer is generally a career gig, not a temp gig. Apple store retail monkey is more of a temp job anyway.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[geoskd]

You know that prison guards in California can make over 100k a year.

And yet the guy in Kansas has a better standard of living because it is a lot cheaper to live in Kansas than California

-=Geoskd

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[RubberDogBone]

Yeah, they need to try working in a warehouse or digging ditches or landscaping or hauling trash out of foreclosed homes or roofing or road paving or concrete work, or any of a hundred other jobs paying 7-12 an hour in the heat, on your feet all day, in the sun.

And then complain about your $11.91/hr to sit in air conditioning in a clean, safe mall environment stocked with the very latest gadgets and lots of people to talk to, all day.

Think about the guys up on a roof spreading tar all day long in 130 degree heat trying not to get badly burned by molten tar or piss off the hair trigger boss. Or the poor sap tasked with cleaning crap out of a house, with no HVAC and god only knows what in the trash. Needles, nails, excrement, bugs, who knows.

To workers like that, the Apple store environment is as close to heaven in white as they can possibly imagine.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Spy Handler]

You know that prison guards in California can make over 100k a year.

And now you know why the fricking looney of a state (which I live in unfortunately) is broke and makes Greece look good.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[MagusSlurpy]

You know that prison guards in California can make over 100k a year.

And yet the guy in Kansas has a better standard of living

Well, I don't know about all that. He still has to live in Kansas, where the best entertainment is betting on which trailer park gets wiped out by MNF (Monday Night Funnelclouds).

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[MagusSlurpy]

On what metric do you base this allegation?

This metric would be my guess.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Spy Handler]

that's correct. But the biggest reason prison guards here make $90k AVERAGE plus another $50k in benefits is their union. Believe it or not, the prison guards union is one of the most powerful in the state. For some reason the heavily Democratic state legislature gives them whatever they want.

Here's an example of the lunacy that is the state of California:

State records show the average vacation payout for Corrections employees is $25,000. But in 2010, a $97,000-a-year-parole agent received a lump sum of $269,000 for unused leave, a $119,000-a-year administrator got $243,000 and a $70,000-a-year parole agent got $176,000.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Chewbacon]

I agree. 8 years ago I made a whopping $6.88 an hour in retail. After a yeah I went up to $7.05. I don't think I'd catch up with these guys at that rate. Hell they make more than I made as an entry level IT tech. I'd have jumped to an apple store in a heartbeat even thought I dont use their stuff.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Uberbah]

Shorter version of your post: get back in that bucket, retail crabs.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Uberbah]

Any particular reason why this was left out of the storyline? From your link:

The deal lifts the cap on saved vacation, meaning prison guards will be able to stash away an unlimited number of vacation days and get a lump sum payout when they quit or retire. Normally state workers can accrue up to 80 days of vacation for payouts.

They aren't getting crazy super vacations. They're getting compensated for the time off they've accumulated.

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[Wovel]

I would lose the $1 and go to the Apple store :)

Re:$12 an hour is being exploited?

[AdamWill]

Try reading the article, rather than the summary. It's not a bunch of Apple employees complaining they're not being paid enough. It's a lot more nuanced (and interesting).

I heard through the grape vine

[Anonymous Coward]

25% raise is in the air ...
$30/hr for counter workers

it's not always about the cash.

[MrCrassic]

You don't work at the Apple Store to make any sort of serious cash. There are many better conduits for people to travel down in both IT and sales if money is a concern. People work there for the *coolness* factor. It's about as hot as working for Google or Facebook, and employee discounts are never a bad thing. Its also an easy experience builder for people, especially given the floor traffic.

And not to nitpick, but $10/hr ain't bad. Especially if you're earning tips.

Re:it's not always about the cash.

[__aaltlg1547]

Yeah with the employee discount you can buy Apple gear for only 75% more than competitive hardware.

AYT writer is a fool

[tomhath]

Much of the debate about American unemployment has focused on why companies have moved factories overseas, but only 8 percent of the American work force is in manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Yea, that's the problem...Duh. People need jobs, so they work retail.

Re:AYT writer is a fool

[DesScorp]

Much of the debate about American unemployment has focused on why companies have moved factories overseas, but only 8 percent of the American work force is in manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Yea, that's the problem...Duh. People need jobs, so they work retail.

That manufacturing stat cuts two ways, though. A smaller percentage of the population works in manufacturing, but our population growth has been huge over time. Even with the outsourcing trend, in total output, America is manufacturing more than ever before, including the "glory days" of the mid 20th century during and after WWII. The need... and value of... service sector work has grown even more though, and that's why they're where the jobs are. For all of the bitching about how we don't make things anymore, or don't have as many farmers, etc, the fact is that we're in something of a golden age right now. We're building more things and growing more food than we ever have before. Technology has simply changed those fields to where fewer people are required to do them. Modern business supply chain methods have also reduced the need for personnel. We've wrung an awful lot of efficiency out of the process. Manufacturing is faster and less worker intensive and more efficient than even two decades ago. So even if we adopted a Japanese MITI-style industrial policy (which, most economists now think, has failed them in the long run), massive numbers of manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. We'll continue to make more and more, but unless you artificially limit or ban productivity technologies and supply chain methods... which would put us at a huge competitive disadvantage... you're simply never going to see more than 10 percent of a modern western country working in factories. And there's really nothing bad about that. Skilled workers will always make a nice living, but your kid would probably be even better off as a banker or manager.

Article notes everyone just got raises

[maccodemonkey]

Funny how the summary didn't note why the article was just published, Apple just gave everyone raises. Reports are that geniuses are being paid in the ballpark of $30 an hour now, which is reasonable for an IT focused job.

From TFA:

"Even Apple, it seems, has recently decided it needs to pay its workers more. Last week, four months after The New York Times first began inquiring about the wages of its store employees, the company started to inform some staff members that they would receive substantial raises. An Apple spokesman confirmed the raises but would not discuss their size, timing or impetus, nor who would earn them.

But Cory Moll, a salesman in the San Francisco flagship store and a vocal labor activist, said that on Tuesday he was given a raise of $2.82 an hour, to $17.31, an increase of 19.5 percent and a big jump compared with the 49-cent raise he was given last year."

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[slippyblade]

Every one of the numbers tossed around in this article make me gag. Those wages, even pre-raise, are ridiculously high for an entry level retail job. And as for your $30 and hour for the "genius" bar?? Please. My sister is an RN - you know - the people in the hospital that save your life? - and she gets about $25 an hour. I've NEVER heard of an IT position, especially one attached to a retail operation, making that.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[Nimey]

Are they contractors? If they don't get benefits and have to pay their own taxes, etc. then it's not quite that ridiculous.

If they're benefits-getting employees, wow. I've been doing IT for 7 years at a state university in the Midwest and I get $23.50/hour, started at ~$17/hr. Our cost-of-living in this area is pretty low; for example, a 1900 square-foot house with 1/4 acre lot might go for $158K new.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[Anonymous Coward]

>Oh yea! You think that's a shitty wage? I'll post about how shitty someone else's wage is, so you should be happy with your shitty wage.

You're racing each other to shitville. Dumb move.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[Skuld-Chan]

Yeah and your getting ripped off. I work for a state university at the exact same wage, and all my friends who do the exact same thing (I manage all their labs, and do package management in SCCM among other things) made 10-20k more than I do.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[maccodemonkey]

Are they contractors? If they don't get benefits and have to pay their own taxes, etc. then it's not quite that ridiculous.

If they're benefits-getting employees, wow.

From my understand, they're real employees with benefits.

The benefits alone puts them a step above most people in this economy.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[dlp211]

No, those wages are good, everyone else is just getting ripped off.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[Nimey]

In exchange, we get better job security. The extra money would be *great*, but I'm pretty happy having a job.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[MagusSlurpy]

Probably free tuition too, if you chose to use it.

Re:Article notes everyone just got raises

[j-beda]

Every one of the numbers tossed around in this article make me gag. Those wages, even pre-raise, are ridiculously high for an entry level retail job. And as for your $30 and hour for the "genius" bar?? Please. My sister is an RN - you know - the people in the hospital that save your life? - and she gets about $25 an hour. I've NEVER heard of an IT position, especially one attached to a retail operation, making that.

There seems to be a lot of focus on what other jobs pay and that in comparison one of the rates is too high. Maybe neither is to high, but rather both are too low, with one being a bit less "too low".

I keep thinking about the overall increase in economic output of the "western world" since the 1900s and if that if only a small fraction of that increase had been spread around to everyone in society we would all have real living wages and 10/hour per week jobs. What has actually happened is that the majority of the gains have got to the top of the pyramid : http://xkcd.com/980/
In 2007 dollars: Average 1965 production worker pay $19.61/hour, CEO $490/hour; Average 2007 production worker pay: $19.71/hour, CEO $5420/hour

To me it seems that there could be no argument possible that could justify the production worker's stagnant income in comparison to the more than 10-fold increase in CEO compensation. I can understand why it has happened, but do not think it is good for society in general that it has happened.

I have no good idea how to structure a system that would more fairly widely distribute economic gains without imposing excessive undesired side-effects of cheaters, freeloaders, decreased incentives to innovate and strive for advancement, etc. On a worldwide basis, I am certainly in the 1% and am not particularly interested in decreasing my standard of living so others can increase their, but there must be a way that we could structure stuff so that increases go more toward the bottom of the pile than towards the top.

Of course that sounds a lot like communism, and we have seen how poorly that has been implemented.

Apple vs Tiffany

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you rather start at an Apple store for $11.91 an hour (average starting base pay, according to the linked article) and an employee discount, or at Tiffany for $15.60?

Hard to say. I'd have to run the math, factoring in such variables as value of store stock, ease of concealment, average return for Apple/Tiffany product on the black market, sophistication of store security and employee monitoring, etc.

Neither. Retail is hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather get punched in the gut for a nickel a hit.

Seriously I don't understand how some people can be so rude and demanding at stores. I'm almost apologetic when I have to correct some uninformed store clerk for being wrong.

Maybe I'm just not naturally brash and assertive.

I completely agree..

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, $11.91/hour starting pay at retail is pretty damn good, since most retail stores start at minimum wage.

The author has absolutely no reference point to make any sort of claim, here.

Don't click the NY Times link.They just need views

[SensitiveMale]

They are following the Dvorak method for generating page views. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg Don't fall for it.

As others have said....

[tkrotchko]

At the risk of being redundant, these are retail clerk jobs, and don't require a whole lot of skill.

People walk into the store ready to buy a computer. I've never seen a clerk in an Apple store actually sell someone a computer who didn't already want one.

Re:As others have said....

[khallow]

People walk into the store ready to buy a computer. I've never seen a clerk in an Apple store actually sell someone a computer who didn't already want one.

There are two things to note. You don't want that person changing their mind. That's part of the job. Also, the clerk can add value by upselling.

Re:As others have said....

[MagusSlurpy]

Yeah, but the whole Apple store only carries what, 10 products, with an average of three possible upgrades? Not too complicated.

"Sorry, I'll have to get Bob to help you decide if you want to get the 8 GB or 16GB iPod, I only know about the 8 GB and 16 GB iPhone."

Re:As others have said....

[khallow]

So you don't think there's any possibility of upselling? I do. A simple product line doesn't keep you from getting the customer to buy more stuff. In your implied example above, a customer might come in looking for an iPod and come out with an iPhone too. That's an upsell.

Re:As others have said....

[MagusSlurpy]

No, that's technically a cross-sell.

And of course there's a possibility of upselling - the 16 GB iPod when the customer came in looking for an 8 GB model!

There just aren't a lot of options to require talent in the Apple sales staff. It's like working the concession stand at a movie theater - "Would you like to buy a large? It's only a quarter more!"

Re:As others have said....

[Phroggy]

People walk into the store ready to buy a computer.

And if the salesman isn't very good, all they walk out with is just a computer.

Have you seen the people working at Apple stores?

[swillden]

In many cases, Tiffany wouldn't hire them. I've never seen anyone with two-inch gauges and tattoos from wrist to shoulder working at Tiffany.

I'm somewhat surprised that Apple hires them -- not that they don't do a good job, but few companies would hire such for public-facing positions. I think Apple has tapped a good employee resource there; bright, competent young people who've made personal appearance choices that generally disqualify them for customer-facing jobs better-paid than 7-11. And it probably does allow them to pay a little less.

BS

[Billly Gates]

I am the last to defend Apple but have any of you slashdotters worked retail before?

Apple wanted to hire me at $16 an hour and fly me down to Cupertino for training as a tech. BestBuy pays $9 an hour and prefers to hire their minimal wage teenagers instead.

$12 an hour is awesome for retail! Sure the pay is about $20,000 a year and you can't live off that but it is 25% more than the competiton. Tiffany's? Well you have to have many years of experience and be great with selling credit cards and be a good saleswomen or man for that job. They do not hire teenagers.

WHat I do not understand is if you are great at sales you can sell cars for ALOT MORE money or work in corporate sales? I guess you get broken and fear based employees for that price but Apple does pay above market wages as they do not want a geeksquad representing their products.

the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[decora]

has gone up dramatically since the 1990s, and the Consumer Price Index has essentially been 'gamed' to hide all of this.

gasoline in particular went haywire about the same time that the commodities exchanges switched from open pits to electronic trading (see the book Asylum by McGrath-Goodman for more information)

food is linked to gasoline of course, but it still doesn't explain why flour is fluctuating up and down by 100% every few months.

housing of course went through the roof thanks to the subprime mortgage securities and their deriviatives (CDOs, Synthetic CDOs, etc), and the foreclosure robo-signing scandal has backlogged the system so much that prices still havent come down properly.

in other words, yes, things have changed.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[billstewart]

Of course, gasoline prices weren't at all affected by the US starting wars in oil-producing countries...

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[superdave80]

...housing of course went through the roof thanks to the subprime mortgage securities...

So, you haven't noticed that the problem of sky-high housing costs have corrected itself?

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no most people haven't. Housing cost have gone down, but it's almost impossible for someone to get a mortgage to afford one. I don't care how nice or big a house is, most people can not simply put +80k down on a new place. So they are left rent, and rent has not gone down. If anything it's gone way up. Hell I'm in AZ (one of the worse hit areas of the state to boot), I've seen homes and apartments going for 30-50% more then they where 2 years ago! The town home right next to mine was going for 1200/month two years ago when I moved in. Since then people have moved in and out, and the new tents that live there are paying 1655/month. Housing for the bulk of the population is generally going up, not down.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[DinDaddy]

Since this is a discussion about the buying power of wages, how much of it goes for gas versus tax is irrelevant.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[blackraven14250]

Yup, rent has definitely gone up. Increased demand for rentable properties and all that, given the lack of credit to buy...

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[shiftless]

You need to move somewhere else that is not fucking ridiculous. I don't know what planet Arizona is from, but here in the midwest (where we have things like flowing water, etc) both houses and rent are cheap.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[MagusSlurpy]

I don't know about cheap. I'm looking for a new place to live around Cincinnati, and I can't find a two-bedroom apartment anywhere near my job or school that's much under $800, unless I don't mind replacing my car windows once a month.

I know it's cheap compared to Chicago or NYC or Arizona, but considering the same apartments cost only $600/month three years ago, that's a pretty significant increase.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[MagusSlurpy]

Except that having higher taxes tends to lower the cost of living, since you're getting things like working public transit and effective health care.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[X0563511]

Good thing they don't charge for characters in the body of a message. You don't need to try to scrimp by putting part of it in the subject, you know.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[X0563511]

I pay almost $500 for a tiny studio apartment, 15 miles out from the city center in a pretty low-income area. Seems a bit much TBH, for all of the one room that I have.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[X0563511]

Not really. It just needs other data to be meaningful: how much you guys pay in taxes overall.

If you don't pay as much sales or income tax, for example, then it balances out.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd wager house prices and rents go down much further. The current spike in rents is because tenants cannot afford houses at the going rate, while owners can still afford to sit on their properties.

Owners of the current inventory backlog will eventually panic when their mortgage payments or losses start to really bite. That's when they'll want a tenant -- any tenant, at any price. In southern Spain, which was just as bubbly as AZ, banks are sitting on entire lots in order to try to keep prices artificially higher than they should be. They'll be forced to recognize their losses at some point, and recapitalize by conducting a firesale. I doubt things are very different for City, BAC or Wells Fargo. (The shadow inventory in the US is enormous. Surely you know some people who haven't paid a mortgage in months and who have yet to get foreclosed.)

By the way, this area is one where introducing a new tax might might make very good sense: a tax on unused real estate, say a few months' worth of rent at the going local market rate. It would instantly nuke real estate speculation, and instantly bring prices crashing down to a level that people can afford. Also, it would make the owner's incentives match those of his tenants: crack shacks would get repaired so as to be rentable at all, and the lower the rent in an area, the less the tax liability for sitting on a property (eg the vacation house).

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[bryan1945]

You don't remember the 80s very well, do you?

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[zidium]

has gone up dramatically since the 1990s, and the Consumer Price Index has essentially been 'gamed' to hide all of this.

gasoline in particular went haywire about the same time that the commodities exchanges switched from open pits to electronic trading (see the book Asylum by McGrath-Goodman for more information)

food is linked to gasoline of course, but it still doesn't explain why flour is fluctuating up and down by 100% every few months.

housing of course went through the roof thanks to the subprime mortgage securities and their deriviatives (CDOs, Synthetic CDOs, etc), and the foreclosure robo-signing scandal has backlogged the system so much that prices still havent come down properly.

in other words, yes, things have changed.

"has gone up dramatically since the 1990s,"??? What went up??

Starting your conversation in the SUBJECT line is **very** rude, you know.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[turkeyfeathers]

food is linked to gasoline of course, but it still doesn't explain why flour is fluctuating up and down by 100% every few months.

So what's your problem? Flour stores well in a sealed plastic container, so just stock up when the price is down 100%... that's an unbeatable price.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[Gr8Apes]

The cheapest apartment I could get in the area I worked in the early 90s was $500/month, and included, gratis, potential lead poisoning. I opted for roommates instead. Pay was much much lower then, for everything.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[doccus]

I agree with the poster above... and frankly, I am shocked, and sickened , at the hard line attitude prevalent on this board, that 1) 12$ an hour is a "living wage", and 2) a "living wage" is not necessary in the first place, for EVERYBODY..Look , students and teens are subject t a different wage classification anyways, so that's a bogus argument.. I assume most everybody here actually has HAD a job in the past, so you must know that you dont get all of your wages in a pay packet. I don't know what y'all down in the states lose, but here it can be $200 to $300 per month.. and unless "daddy" GAVE you a free car (mine didn't!!)n you have to go BUY one so as to get to work.. and since you can't pay for one all uy front., you have to make payments.. now maybe you'll be lucky enought to be able to take the bus to work, so it's only $50 for a bus pass per month, but more probably you might be one of the 50% that do not live close to work.. so maybe $200 more a month. fo9r a reliable used car.. OK so you've still got 1200$ left, assuming you worked all 160 hours every 4 weeks...Not living with your mom?.. OK, another 800$ out the window.. where I live, in western CAnada, there is NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER of finding a rental for less, even a vbacjhelor.. unless you want to live in a welfare building with crackheads and a community toilet and kitchen for 400$ per month.. and they're already full up.. which is why our homeless is the highest in Canada.. so you've got 200 more after that for utilities, and cable.. if you're lucky.. as utility rates have skyrocketed here.. and 200 for food.. No clothes, or gas, or medical, personal or other sundry..That's not a "living wage" thats a "subsistence" wage, and if a crisis comes, you're headed right for the welfare lines.. and, hey, good luck there, these days!

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[donutface]

Not really. It just needs other data to be meaningful: how much you guys pay in taxes overall.

If you don't pay as much sales or income tax, for example, then it balances out.

Sales tax (or VAT) in Ireland is currently at 23%. You also pay 20% income tax on anything up to 32,800 euro and 41% on anything above that. You are issued a number of tax credits which reduces your tax burden somewhat, but once you go above the 32,000 mark you'll be taxed pretty heavily. There are further taxes on income ontop of this. Its a massive contrast to WA for instance where sales tax was at 11% and there was no state income tax

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[MagusSlurpy]

I was saying that the higher taxes in the UK vs. the US translate to lower cost of living in the UK versus in the US.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[erp_consultant]

I live in AZ and I can tell you that property owners are having no trouble renting houses. Not only have a good portion of the foreclosed homes been bought up but new houses are being built. Why? Because non-investors that just want a place to live don't want to pick over the scraps of foreclosed homes that are left, often competing against investors with all cash offers. They would rather buy a new home that doesn't need all kinds of repairs and is not next door to some other home that needs all kinds of repairs. Plus, they can pick their colors etc. So builders are building. In my view, part of the reason that led to over speculation in the Phoenix market (along with Florida) is that in both those states the bank cannot sue you if you walk away from your mortgage. You simply give the bank the paper and leave. In other states a mortgage is considered more of an actual contract. If you welch on the deal they can come after you. Many of the real estate investors here bought multiple homes with little or nothing down. When things went sour they just said "screw it" and left the bank, and ultimately their neighbors, to pick up the pieces. Change that law and investors can no longer walk away so easily from investments that haven't turned out the way they wanted. It would also prevent individuals from doing the same thing. A lot of people that have done short sales here are perfectly able to pay their mortgages - they just don't feel like it. As always, market forces have begun to correct things. A series of government sponsored programs have proven to be worthless, as I expected.

Re:the price of gasoline, food, and housing

[Serpents]

Or higher wages for government employees, more tax cuts for corporations and the rich, another war or two. It's not only how high the taxes are, it's about how well you spend the money.

It's retail. What did they expect?

[NicBenjamin]

Minimum wage is the norm. I work for a pretty good employer (Home Depot), and I get a raise whenever minimum wage goes up. I do not get the opportunity to work inside in air conditioning. I am expected to help people load their cars with their purchases, which more then once have literally weighed a ton (50 40 lb bags). My option for advancement exist, but none would get me to $11.91/hr. I do not get an employee discount of any kind, on anything. I could have benefits, but they require premiums and on $8/hr premiums are impossible.

Re:It's retail. What did they expect?

[MagusSlurpy]

I posted this above, also, but I worked for Lowe's about five years ago, and at that time, Depot paid more than Lowe's did. I know both have been hurting lately, but I was making $11.55 as a CSR in Flooring ($12.05 when I left at the end of 2007) in 2005. At the time, they gave a 10% raise if you moved up to Team Leader, and again to Sales Specialist or Department Manager (I started in 2003 at $9.50). Start looking for opportunities for advancement, work hard, and kiss ass, the lack of the last being the thing that finally boned me.

But yeah - loading 15 50# bags of mortar and a pallet of 65# tile boxes wasn't worth $12/hour then, let alone now. Or concrete or shingles, which really sucked since they weren't even my department.

Re:It's retail. What did they expect?

[NicBenjamin]

Flooring Employees start at $8.50, so the wage difference is only about $1 an hour. But that buck is probably why Home Depot makes a lot more money then Lowe's. I'm making less then that because I work in the parking lot, and started at $7.60/hr. Then Minimum Wage went up in Ohio so I'm up to $8.

If my store got exactly the right job openings for me to get promoted $11.91 would be reachable in a couple years. But as a starting salary?

Beats actual work.

[couchslug]

Go hump boxes on a loading dock or be a parts puller at a salvage yard, then tell us how bad the Apple workers have it.

Re:Apple overflowing with cash

[NicBenjamin]

In retail $11.91 an hour starting wage is great. Even for skilled employees. H and R Block Tax preparers, for example, are only paid $8.50.

I have had jobs in retail since 1999, and I have never heard of a non-supervisor pulling in $11.91 an hour in base salary before. Yeah with commission the 20-hour a week entry-level dude can sometimes pull in $15/$20, but base salary of almost $12? It just doesn't happen outside of New York City.

25% raise news was on the radio

[billstewart]

Probably was NPR, but it might have been traffic radio\\\ CBS. Of course, it might have been motivated by the NYT story, or it might be an effect of Cook taking over the business from Steve.

Re:Apple overflowing with cash

[dochin]

One good turn deserves another. I don't appreciate being used as part of your 99% argument. Leave me out. From now on you may refer to yourselves as the 98.999999999833%

compared to the iran-iraq war in the 1980s

[decora]

which saw several million casualties and refugess, including over a million people dead, with chemical warfare and massive tank battles, and then the 1991 gulf war where Saddam set his own oil fields on fire.... then of course the 1970s violent revolution in Iran, the rise of the Ba'ath Party in Syria and Iraq, the Suez crisis, the various wars against israel, etc.

compared to all that, the US invasion in 2003 of Iraq is not very big. it seems big, but it really does not explain the price craziness at all. things have been much more chaotic in the past in the middle east, but prices were much more stable.

Re:compared to the iran-iraq war in the 1980s

[Phrogman]

Where I am living (Victoria BC), the price of gas fluctuated continuously apparently based on whenever something bad happened. My theory was they would adjust the price up on bad news because we would be more worried about the news than the price of the gas. It essentially fluctuated between about $1.05.9/Litre and $1.39.9/Litre on a daily or weekly basis with no apparent correlation with the actual price of oil at the time. By bad news I mean anything: the death of Michael Jackson drove the price up for instance.
This ended recently for about 2 weeks - coincidentally right after some gas stations in Ontario were found guilty of colluding on prices at the pump, but ended this last week when the price plummeted as low as $1.02.9 at a station a few miles away from me and caused massive lineups. One of the local stations is usually at $1.47.9 and still does business because its the only station in a few mile radius.
Basically, the local gas companies have been either colluding or engaging in a wild gas war for the past few years - at any rate the price is *well* over what would be an acceptable profit in any other industry I am sure.

Re:compared to the iran-iraq war in the 1980s

[CrimsonAvenger]

Basically, the local gas companies have been either colluding or engaging in a wild gas war for the past few years - at any rate the price is *well* over what would be an acceptable profit in any other industry I am sure.

While I have no particular information about gasoline prices in Canada, in the USA, gasoline companies make a bit more than 6% profit.

As compared to, say, soft drink makers (14%+), brewers (16%+), magazine publishers (51%+), just to pick a few samples out of the list.

Re:Have you seen the people working at Apple store

[Fjandr]

You can be forward-thinking and still be realistic about how companies typically select employees for public-facing positions.

In addition, swillden's description was probably the most non-judgmental analysis of that particular employee issue I've read to date. The only real implicit judgment in the statement was actually in regard to his assumptions about Apple, not the people they hire for front-line retail positions.

Re:Have you seen the people working at Apple store

[DesScorp]

In many cases, Tiffany wouldn't hire them. I've never seen anyone with two-inch gauges and tattoos from wrist to shoulder working at Tiffany.

I've never seen anyone like that at an Apple store either. For all of the "think different" stuff, Apple seems to prefer their employees... even retail clerks... to be stylish and "clean cut", so to speak. Remember, Apple is all about image.

Well will the boycott help?

[philofaqs]

Let's face it, fewer customers/less demand to Apple's mind means less need for staff/geniuses and lower wages need to be paid... Methinks your suggestion is going to make it worse for them not better.

Easy.

[pubwvj]

"Would you rather start at an Apple store for $11.91 an hour (average starting base pay, according to the linked article) and an employee discount, or at Tiffany for $15.60?"

Easy. I would rather work at Apple. Hands down. No contest. Discounts at Tiffany's are useless (to me) whereas the employee discount at Apple is fabulous. Besides, I like Apple products better than Tiffany's junk.

But, I work for myself so the point is moot. The reality is it is a free country and people choose to work at Apple. It isn't slave labor. Nothing wrong, nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Rich MILF bonus

[microcars]

yeah I know you've been modded down into oblivion, but I have to disagree.
Every Apple Store I have ever been in is filled with MILFs buying stuff for themselves or their kids.
If I was not happily married, I would consider hanging out there and "helping" customers, or....applying for a job so I could do it all day.
For the potential "action" of course.

Sure

[Greyfox]

I know someone who has an art degree and has worked the last 20 years in photo labs. She doesn't make much more than $11 an hour now, and would probably have a lot more advancement potential in the Apple Store.

shocking news: biggest company isn't a charity

[amoeba1911]

They are unskilled laborers, $12/hr is alright for that kind of job. I am not an Apple fan, but this is silly to single out one company. I think it was some Disney employees that were fighting for a 25 cent raise when Michael Eisner gave himself a multi-million dollar bonus.

I despise Apple, but it's not just Apple. As any company gets bigger, there are more leaders, and more levels of leaders, each successive layer receiving significantly more money than the lower level... Walmart, anyone? Apple store employees are no more deserving of more money than Walmart employees. Apple's no different than Walmart etc.

The people who run the company aren't running a charity. At the end of the day it's not how much love the company has, because love does not pay the bills, love will not buy you that luxury mega-yacht in the Mediterranean. If you pay 30000 employees just $1 more per hour, that would come out to roughly $43 million dollars. Tim Cook received $570 million dollars worth of stock, for that money you could pay each apple store employee an extra $12 per hour, for some of them this would be doubling their wages. Go ask Tim Cook if he wants to give up his $570 million bonus just so that his store employees can make $20k more per year. Would you??

The problem is much deeper than Apple. The problem is that we somehow accept it as okay when someone gets compensated 20 thousand times more than some others. Do you seriously think one single person can ever be as productive as 20000 others? Maybe you convince yourself that maybe he's doing 20 thousand people's worth of work, so it's okay. Maybe you give up and accept it as "the world's unfair" and there's nothing you can do about it. As long as you convince yourself it's okay, you will have store clerks working for $12/hr while the people on top in the very same company will be getting 20000 times more money. I never hear anyone say: "Hey! Stop that! You can't give yourself twenty thousand times more money than this other guy."

Re:shocking news: biggest company isn't a charity

[DogDude]

It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. It's not "productivity per employee". You have to take into consideration responsibility, too.

Re:shocking news: biggest company isn't a charity

[kenh]

"If you pay 30000 employees just $1 more per hour, that would come out to roughly $43 million dollars. Tim Cook received $570 million dollars worth of stock, for that money you could pay each apple store employee an extra $12 per hour, for some of them this would be doubling their wages. Go ask Tim Cook if he wants to give up his $570 million bonus just so that his store employees can make $20k more per year. Would you??"

That bonus Tim cook got was one-time expense, raising everyone's salary $20K/year would cost Apple $570M every year going forward. After a couple years, that starts to add up...

Re:shocking news: biggest company isn't a charity

[Erikderzweite]

By "responsibility" you mean "golden parachute" in case of a major screw-up? Take Elop, for example -- he has ruined Nokia, what responsibility will he take?

Re:Have you seen the people working at Apple store

[swillden]

In many cases, Tiffany wouldn't hire them. I've never seen anyone with two-inch gauges and tattoos from wrist to shoulder working at Tiffany.

I've never seen anyone like that at an Apple store either. For all of the "think different" stuff, Apple seems to prefer their employees... even retail clerks... to be stylish and "clean cut", so to speak. Remember, Apple is all about image.

Different stores, maybe?

I've been to the stores in Utah (SLC) and Colorado (Boulder, Broomfield and Denver), and seen many employees with body mods. Not a majority, mind you, but a significant minority.

Re:Living Wage

[Anonymous Coward]

If people can't live on the wages they are paid; they will supplement their income in other ways. Whether that be theft/robbery, it will happen. Paying people a "living wage" reduces crime.

Re:Have you seen the people working at Apple store

[swillden]

It pains me to see such judgement passed on what I thought was a website full of forward thinking technologists.

I didn't pass any judgments on the employees. If I judged Apple, it was positively, both in that they're willing to employ people many companies would not, and that they're smart enough to exploit an underutilized part of the workforce. If I made any negative judgements, it was towards all of the other potential employers who refuse to hire people that don't fit a certain range of images for public-facing positions, or else towards the general public who are uncomfortable with people that don't fit those images.

In fact, I don't judge those companies negatively, either. Public reactions are what they are, and companies have to deal with reality as it is not as they wish it were. And I don't really judge Apple positively, either, because I don't think their hiring policy is any kind of a moral stance. I think it's just a recognition that the bulk of their target market is young enough not to be too put off by alternative images.

Slave labor

[Anonymous Coward]

To hire someone who's labor cannot justify the "living wage" is to engage in charity and many small business owners cannot afford to be that generous.

if you cannot afford to run your business without slave labor then society should not allow your business to remain open.

Re:Slave labor

[CodeBuster]

Maybe it will fail. That's what's great about the free market, it prevents businesses which are inefficient or not economically viable from continuing to operate. Compare this to government which wastes tax dollars year after year on stupid, wasteful and inefficient programs. It's much more difficult to get rid of bad governments and that's a big part of the problem with government trying to do too much and be all things to all people; it doesn't work. Market forces are like natural forces, we ignore them at our collective peril.

Re:Slave labor

[shiftless]

So it's slave labor if the person can legally work enough to afford to eat, and stay with a relative, church, or other charitable person/organization while they save up and make a plan to improve their lot? In your opinion it's better for that person to just be unemployed with no hope of employment and to remain a burden on the welfare state?

Is it slavery if a person can't afford a cell phone, Xbox, broadband connection, and has to hit up Goodwill, yard sales, flea markets, and rely on smart thinking to work on a tight budget and stick to it? I recently lived for a year on $1000/month in the midwest. Let me tell you, it's entirely possible. If I can do it then somebody making over twice as much has no fucking excuse, other than their own laziness, ignorance, and stupidity. Today's America is full of can't-do pussies who will spend all day long arguing all the reasons why they can't, without a second's thought as to how they should and could.

I think it's got to be something in the water. Where have all the men gone?

Re:Slave labor

[martin-boundary]

Wage slavery is when the slave makes less than what is required to live independently and save enough money to better himself/herself. It has nothing to do with $1000/month or whatever. If you dont make enough money to move out of your parents' house, then you're a wage slave. If you don't make enough money that you can't save enough to survive six months when you lose your job, then you're a wage slave. If you don't make enough to be able to take care of your family, then you're a wage slave.

It's called wage slavery because the person is stuck, all their time is spent at a job and it's impossible to leave that job because it never pays enough to save the minimum amount needed to move away without risk.

If you live in NY city, and you make $1000/month, you're obviously a wage slave. The same amount in Nowheresville may not be as bad.

Re:Slave labor

[CodeBuster]

it never pays enough to save the minimum amount needed to move away without risk.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Re:Slave labor

[khallow]

if you cannot afford to run your business without slave labor then society should not allow your business to remain open.

In a market-based system, such a business goes bankrupt. There's no need to "allow" or not.

Re:Slave labor

[vgrinber]

To hire someone who's labor cannot justify the "living wage" is to engage in charity and many small business owners cannot afford to be that generous.

if you cannot afford to run your business without slave labor then society should not allow your business to remain open.

The Apple Store employees, just like those of any other company, are not slaves by the very fact that they can quit at any time. Your ability to go elsewhere and earn more is not decided by Apple, but by your own level of skill. In addition, who is to decide what the living wage is? The government? One could argue that if the minimum wage were, say $20 per hour, Apple wouldn't open any stores at all since it might not be profitable to do so; and so you would solve "the problem" by getting rid of the low paying jobs. You would get your wish. Unfortunately, there would be more competition for what remained and the same employees you call "slaves" would have no wage at all since they would not have the skills to compete in the market. (In that case, I would be expecting you to ask the government to raise taxes to subsidize jobs because the evil corporations won't make any.)

Re:Slave labor

[atriusofbricia]

To hire someone who's labor cannot justify the "living wage" is to engage in charity and many small business owners cannot afford to be that generous.

if you cannot afford to run your business without slave labor then society should not allow your business to remain open.

This is going to wreck my mods.. but...

How in the hell did this get a +5 Insightful?! What in the hell is insightful about calling a employee a slave? Get a damned clue. Person A offers to pay Person B a particular wage to do a job. The wage is determined by market forces including the size of the appropriate labor pool and Person B's qualifications to do said job. Person B can accept or not.

Not paying a "living wage" does not make the employee a slave or anything even remotely like it. Slaves don't have choices. Slaves can't improve their skills and move up. Slaves can't gain experience and then ask for improved pay.

Don't fucking conflate these two things. It is a dire insult to all those who have been slaves and those who still are.

Re:Slave labor

[Maritz]

I think what's likelier is that they can well afford to run it without slave labour, but choose not to, as it's less lucrative. Why such a business would necessarily go bankrupt isn't clear to me, I imagine it would do perfectly well, better than it would by paying a fair wage in fact.

Re:Slave labor

[Sir_Sri]

It's not that you can't survive for the short term. it's that such low wages aren't sustainable. Someone that low on the economic ladder is, in the long run, going to be a burden to society because they're going to need government sponsored pensions etc. and they'll never pay any meaningful amount of taxes. It's a job not a career so to speak.

Now if you invest in people early enough (public education for example) they become worth a lot more than if you don't, being able to read and do basic math is tremendously valuable, we just don't always see it because effectively everyone in western society meets those standards. The question for living wages and so on is whether or not you are going to have people trapped at that economic reality for ever, or if it's just a temporary gig that has students rotating through.

It's not slavery. It's serfdom. You may not be the property of someone else, but you have no labour mobility to ever become anything other than a low wage minion. Low wages really can and really do trap people in low economic tiers, they don't have enough money to save anything, nor can they borrow money to invest in a better business/education etc because they don't have enough money. It takes a huge amount of effort to get people out of that trap. But it can be done.

Also, again, depends where you are. 1000 bucks a month in new york or silicon valley wouldn't go very far. In Mississippi that's not a huge problem.

Re:Slave labor

[Sir_Sri]

They do in many cases. Around here is 2 bucks an hour chipped in from the government on a 10 dollar minimum wage.

Re:Slave labor

[Rinnon]

To hire someone who's labor cannot justify the "living wage" is to engage in charity and many small business owners cannot afford to be that generous.

if you cannot afford to run your business without slave labor then society should not allow your business to remain open.

Minimum wage is not slave labour, it's just minimum wage, nothing more, nothing less. Dramatic hyperbole is not going to make your case solid. If you actually believe that "if you cannot afford to run a business without paying minimum wage then society should not allow your business to remain open," I think you have a rather naive understanding of how much money many small businesses are making.

Re:Slave labor

[khallow]

Why such a business would necessarily go bankrupt isn't clear to me

Because they wouldn't be able to get labor. Historically, real slave labor has coexisted with capitalism. But in the developed world, real slave labor is virtually nonexistent aside from exploitation of people who for whatever reason are legally persona non grata (such as illegal immigrants or prisoners).

But the sort of so-called slavery that is businesses which pay less than the so-called "living wage" isn't slavery merely because people working there choose to work there. In other words, the business fills a need. Interfere with that via minimum wage laws and then those businesses aren't filling the need as well. That's a typical example of how top-down mandates make an economy less efficient and beneficial.

Re:Slave labor

[khallow]

One could say the same of any generally beneficial concept which can't be achieved in the absolute such as peace or knowledge. And one would be equally foolish to do so.

Re:Slave labor

[Asic Eng]

I work for a large multi-national company. It wastes company dollars year after year on stupid, wasteful and inefficient programs. That's an effect of large organizations - the people deciding things are no longer directly affected by their decisions. The market will favor less broken organizations, but that can take a long time and it will only replace companies with others who do better on average. Also sections of the company which do well will keep alive sections of the company which only burn cash.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Exploiting...?

[RightSaidFred99]

How is anybody being "exploited"? I can't stand Apple for a variety of reasons, this is definitely not one of them. If people are willing to work for that pay, then both parties are satisfied and nothing's wrong.

so what

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently someone is willing to work at Apple for $11.91, so let them work.

All businesses exploit their workers.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

All businesses exploit their workers, underpay them etc. That is what you do to workers. Everyone knows only being the man at the top matters, and you're supposed to crush the fuck out of everyone else until they work for free for you because you offer crackers for lunch.

Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[SuperKendall]

12/hour isn't a living wage in a lot of places.

And why should it be?

If you pay everyone at ANY job a living wage, how are teenagers supposed to find work? They do not NEED a living wage. They would rather you hire two of them instead of one on a living wage, so they both can work.

It's no surprise teenage unemployment is skyrocketing, with a whole generation of kids unable to gain the valuable experience of working - and it's all thanks to people like you who REALLY do not understand the full job market and all the roles it plays throughout someones lifetime.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[dlp211]

Teenage unemployment is skyrocketing and yet we have some of the lowest minimum wages(adjusted for inflation) the country has seen in its modern history. It's almost like wages have nothing to do with teenage unemployment at this point.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[arkane1234]

Teenage unemployment spurred up during the recession that has occurred since 2007 or so. You'll note nothing happened between then and now other than a global recession.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[dlp211]

Bullshit. Dropping the minimum wage would do nothing to spur employment. Why would employers higher more people that they don't need even if they could get them at a reduced price? And while there is a small uptick in unemployment associated with a higher minimum wage, it is typically statistically insignificant and creates a transfer of wealth from employers to employees thus driving demand. But don't let macroeconomics get in the way of your Randian world view.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[bryan1945]

And the employers just raise their prices for everyone. But don't let reality get in the way of your macroeconomic theory world.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[martin-boundary]

"Minimum wage" is a modern invention. It's a stupid idea that doesn't work.

LOL. It only prevents us from having riots in the streets like in the good ol' days of robber baron capitalism. You know, even rich people understand that if there are too many destitute poor people around them, sooner or later there's going to be a fight, and the poor are numerically superior...

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[Richy_T]

What does "need" have to do with it? If the hiring of the employee offers a feasible value proposition at the lower wage compared to the higher wage, that is reason enough to do it. For example at $4/hr, it might improve profits to have someone load a rivet hopper. At $8/hr you might just make the ($25/hr) riveter do it himself.

As an additional bonus, the hopper loader might gain enough experience/interest to become a riveter himself instead of sitting at home, collecting food stamps and watching Oprah all day.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[Eli Gottlieb]

That has an easy fix: just require a living wage for everyone employed full-time, as compensation for the fact that a full-time worker can't afford the time to just get another job.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[painandgreed]

"Minimum wage" is a modern invention. It's a stupid idea that doesn't work.

LOL. It only prevents us from having riots in the streets like in the good ol' days of robber baron capitalism. You know, even rich people understand that if there are too many destitute poor people around them, sooner or later there's going to be a fight, and the poor are numerically superior...

Reminds me of a quote I read once:

"The poor were for Social Security because it beat starving to death.
The middle class were for Social Security because it was better than nothing.
The rich were for Social Security because it beat being drug into the street and killed."

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[sgtrock]

"Minimum wage" is a modern invention.

Yeah, minimum wage is a modern idea all right. It's only 4,000 years old after all.

Government is the problem....not the solution.

Tell you what, why don't you go live in a government free zone like Somalia for a while. I think you'll find the experience enlightening.

Re:Why do YOU think everyone needs a living wage

[scot4875]

What, so you think that everyone should be in competition with teenagers for jobs? That's great -- we can just have everybody living with their parents (who, presumably, have the 'real' jobs) until they find their own 'real' job that makes them a full citizen.

And why do you think teenagers don't deserve a living wage? They already don't generally get very many hours and don't get any other benefits, why should they also be denied a decent hourly rate?

Oh, wait, I'll strawman you here. It's because you think you're better than them, and that you deserve more and they deserve less. I cannot come up with any other explanation that doesn't derive from your own sense of self-importance and entitlement at the expense of others, and I think your posting history easily confirms this.

--Jeremy

gosh!

[pbjones]

a US company 'exploiting' workers? who would have thunk it? As a base rate for a basic sales position, it sounds better than flipping burgers.

Wow, that was stupid

[SuperKendall]

If you can't figure out why the New York Times considers New York City labour issues to be news

Well probably like the rest of the planet he understands the New York Times is an international newspaper, not a city rag.

And did you post that after the part about them talking about New Hampshire, not New York? Or did you just miss that yourself?

Not a Times reader I guess.

Re:Have you seen the people working at Apple store

[Mabhatter]

How true. When I was hired at McDonald's 20 years ago, you could not have visible tattoos on anybody, any jewelry for men, and women could only have stud earrings (one per ear, no necklaces, etc). The majority of the time hey wouldnt bother to HIRE people that interviewed outside that norm. That was BRAND policy.

Any office job was the same thing. If you got tattoos, they had to cover under tees or you would be wearing long sleeves forever.

Re:Living Wage

[MagusSlurpy]

So since crime has been dropping in the US since 1990, that means we're closer to having a true living wage than we have been in 20 years?

Better than their tech support

[arekin]

A large number of Apple's tech support advisers make 10.00 an hour, and are contracted through temp services so that apple doesn't have to pay insurance. They also can be released from there employment without reason simply because Apple chooses to. I've heard horror stories from friends that work at the local apple care call center and they have mentioned people being fired and given no warning, having never received any corrective action.

Re:Rich MILF bonus

[kenh]

Yeah, because rich MILFs are attracted to low-paid retail clerks. In turtlenecks. At the mall.

And yes, they are rich, because they are spending money in an Apple store...

Re:Neither. Retail is hell.

[MagusSlurpy]

That's the beauty of working at the Apple store, though. Everyone comes in so stoned that they're polite.

Re:Have you seen the people working at Apple store

[MagusSlurpy]

Here are several scruffy (and one neck-bearded) Apple associates, and here is one with what looks like dreds, and here are several with arm ink.

Why pay them more?

[non0score]

The point is, an Apple store sales employee doesn't require much skills. They just stand there and people throw money at them. They don't even need to try and sell products to customers!

Re:Apple overflowing with cash

[MagusSlurpy]

I worked five years for Lowe's (2003-2008) in Cincinnati, started at $9.50 and quit at $12.05, I believe. I was a model employee, however, up until the point when I realized I could bring home the same amount bussing tables in half the hours each week.

Haha, I actually still have a pay stub from 2005 in my desk drawer (because I'm a pack rat). $11.55 in November 2005.

Re:I get paid less than minimum and I'm a dev

[MagusSlurpy]

Quit coding for Torvalds then, you goof.

Re:Apple overflowing with cash

[vakuona]

Apple is currently making out size profits. They shouldn't pay outsize wages. They may pay bonuses instead, but you don't out yourself on the hook for high wages because you are currently making lots of money. That is a bad way to run a business.

Foxconn employees would jump at that

[Alain Williams]

Since the makers of Apple bling are now paid $285 a month, something that you could earn in 24 hours at $11.91/hour.

Re:Living Wage

[makomk]

What about working a second job? Why isn't that an option?

It is. In theory I think this makes the problem worse.

Normally, the price of goods or labour is set by supply and demand - naively you'd expect supply to decrease and demand to increase with increasing prices, such that there's some equilibrium point in the middle where the two match. If people deal with pay that's not sufficient to live on by getting second jobs when they wouldn't otherwise then that assumption doesn't hold; a decrease in the cost of labour leads to an increase in the supply of labour. It's quite likely that this increase in the supply of labour would totally overwhelm any increase in demand, causing a downward spiral where lower wages lead to people needing more jobs leading to further decreases in wages. So lowering or removing the minimum wage might well make things worse!

Re:Living Wage

[makomk]

Actually you'd expect supply to increase and demand to decrease with increasing prices. D'oh! Not sure how I missed that. The rest is still correct though.

Move

[tkrotchko]

Then move away from NYC. NTC is an expensive place to live.,

Historically people move to where the opportunities are or where economically it makes sense to live.

Just wanting to live in NYC doesn't mean you are able to.

Re:Rich MILF bonus

[microcars]

but they always do it with the Pizza Delivery guy!
are you telling me those are not documentaries?

Re:Rich MILF bonus

[pianophile]

Yeah, because rich MILFs are attracted to low-paid retail clerks..

I'm sure it depends. How hot is the clerk? How bored and/or neglected is the MILF?

Quote from the article

[gnasher719]

By the standards of retailing, Apple offers above average pay â" well above the minimum wage of $7.25 and better than the Gap, though slightly less than Lululemon, the yoga and athletic apparel chain, where sales staff earn about $12 an hour. The company also offers very good benefits for a retailer, including health care, 401(k) contributions and the chance to buy company stock, as well as Apple products, at a discount.

Doesn't look that badly paid then.

$12 in retail is low?

[l3v1]

Sorry people, but I don't think $12 as a starting salary in a retail job is low. I know some people in retail jobs that earn lower than that, and not as a starting salary, but as a regular one. And no, it's not a salary you could live on, if you're living alone. Yes, this is a problem, but saying this $12 starting wage is lower than the average or that they exploit people with it, is a bit over the edge. Retail jobs are generally not the best paying jobs in the world, as you should know, and I suspect tech retail jobs are among the better ones in the general retail arena. So, while I can understand how low salary is not good for you, don't really think this is something to whine about.

Shocking

[kelemvor4]

I'm not joking. $11.91/hr to start? I assumed they would be paid minimum wage, like mcdonalds employees. I'm surprised they get paid so much to operate a cash register. Humorous that the article suggest they should be paid even more! Their badge may say genius, but in the end they're just cashiers.

In other news, office depot is paying their cashiers below the $11.91 baseline. Let's go protest!

Not your average retail positions

[Douglas Goodall]

The store employees are expected to know about the full line of products, and advise customers about options and configurations that might suit them. The store employees in effect are providing pre-sales technical support and should be paid appropriately. But then again Apple underpays their engineers also. Go figure.

Apple store: affordable uniform

[peter303]

Apple is chinos plus one of their store shirts. Tiffany's you have to dress upscale, go to the cleaners each week, etc.

Most religions don't pay very well

[slazzy]

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-21/tech/29982282_1_apple-stores-steve-jobs-brain

New York Times versus Apple Inc.

[JBaustian]

Since last year, about the time of Steve Jobs' death, the New York Times has been on an anti-Apple kick. First with the allegations about labor conditions at the factories in China, now about the labor conditions in the Apple Stores. It is almost as if someone on the editorial staff decided that Apple was too big and too successful and it was the duty of the NYT to take them down.

Or maybe someone in management at the Times decided to short Apple stock.

$11/hr isn't that bad

[lilfields]

Uh, $11/hr in some part of the country is actually decent pay considering it's just a retail store. I know factory workers that start out at $10/hr. I am normally critical of Apple, but starting at $11/hr isn't bad at all. It requires almost no knowledge what-so-ever, it's just a retail store. It's not like they're running a server farm.

Re:as someone who has worked retail for 7 years...

[lilfields]

I don't know how many retail stores you've worked out, or been to...but most people don't "work their asses off," mostly it involves standing around and usually avoiding the customer. Granted there are some that do work their ass off, but they aren't in that position for long. Again, walking around a retail store doesn't require any sort of knowledge other than a cash register, why should this be a high paying job? You aren't doing anything remotely complicated. If someone is willing to work at this price, then let them work. If you aren't, seek employment elsewhere.

Compression against the wall

[SuperKendall]

Lots happened - with less money going around, teenagers are the first to be let go, and the last to be hired because they don't have a lot of skills yet the minimum wage is absurdly high making hiring them a poor choice.

College grads are having trouble for the same reason. Why not just hire a somewhat more expensive older worker rather than paying too much to train someone who might not work out?

The truth of it is there if you just think about it at all.

Re:Compression against the wall

[mk1004]

College grads are having trouble for the same reason. Why not just hire a somewhat more expensive older worker rather than paying too much to train someone who might not work out?

So ask some of those "somewhat more expensive" older workers how easy it is finding work is right now.

Your logic sucks on that one, which makes me question your entire argument.

My Genius pay in 2002...$19.25/hr.

[LanMan04]

That's because she works at the Genius Bar....genius.

Data Point: When I was a Mac Genius back in 2002, my starting pay (with a newly-earned BS in InfoSystems) was $19.25.

I know that was 10 years ago, but thought it might be useful.

And management were total cocks about everything. No overtime, ever. Back-to-backs where you'd close the store on night and have to be there for opening the next day. 10-day work stretches with a 4 days off, then another 10 days in a row.

Even as a Mac Genius you were treated as a low form of retail worker life. One of my bosses, who previously managed an Old Navy (such tech skills...) used to regularly bitch at the Geniuses about how long it took us to work through our repair queue...."they're just computers, how hard can it be!" she would quip.

No drug test, though!

Mod parent up

[shiftless]

This is a serious post, not a troll. Iran is not planning to nuke anyone, as much as the media and government insists so. Get a clue mods!

undo

[spectrokid]

undo mod