« Red lights. They aren't that hard. | Main | Gee, thanks »

Wherein M1EK defends teenagers

Even though I'm 96 years old, I found myself defending teenagers twice recently - as per the following comment on this post on Steve Crossland's local real estate blog (which I'm also adding a long-overdue link to today). Steve was arguing that the quality of contractors he uses as a property manager is declining dramatically (as a landlord of one unit myself, I can definitely agree with his point), but then placed the blame mostly on today's kids not wanting to work hard. My response:

I had this same conversation with my dad over Xmas, or at least one very much like it, and I ended up defending teenagers.

Why is it that when we talk about ourSELVES, and our work choices, we think we're being rational economic actors when we decide to pursue work that offers us the greatest compensation for our effort (whether that be strictly financial or some other compensation), but we expect teenagers to work crappy jobs for low pay just because we had to do it?

Frankly, the importation of so much illegal labor has made it a suckers' game for teenagers to do a lot of that hard work. My dad was complaining more about fast-food workers all being illegals because the kids didn't 'want' to do that work (I had to point out to him that when I was in high school, the local McDonald's briefly raised wages to $5.00/hour in the $3.35 minimum days and then had no problem whatsoever getting local kids to work there).

If economics is a good reason for you and I to pick certain jobs, it's a good reason for them, too. So if you want better tradesmen, you're going to have to get the contractors to give up on the illegals first, and then invest a bit more in wages to attract locals (no, there's no such thing as a "job Americans won't do", but there damn well are jobs they won't do for a specified wage - as is true with any occupation).

And like with my field, if you allow outside-of-the-market competition to take all the entry-level jobs (or, if you prefer, discourage Americans from pursuing those jobs), you're going to see an eventual erosion of the more advanced jobs, too, because you don't become an experienced senior guy at trade X without spending a number of years working as the junior guy. You touched on this briefly with regards to your favorite handyman, but misidentified the cause.

Insisting that teenagers give up more attractive or more lucrative options just to suffer so we can feel better, uh, ain't gonna happen.

This entry was posted in the following categories: Economics , PS: I am not a crackpot , metablog

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/cgi-m1ek/MT/mt-tb.cgi/511

Comments

Also why we still have panhandlers. I suggest as a start we take what a panhandler makes in a day and 1.5 to 2x that should be the basis for our minimum wage.
Panhandlers aren't lazy, they're entrepreneurial.

$5? Really? I don't know how good an example the Boca McDonald's might be. I know I made $2.13 /hr plus tip share when I was a teen busboy. (How's "When I Was A Teen Busboy" for a film title?)

I agree with the basic thrust of your sentiment, however.

Post a comment