[HN Gopher] Share of U.S. workers holding multiple jobs is rising
___________________________________________________________________
Share of U.S. workers holding multiple jobs is rising
Author : batmaniam
Score : 125 points
Date : 2021-02-18 19:01 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| pb7 wrote:
| It's unfortunate that people have to split their time between two
| separate jobs but these stats never mention the number of hours
| worked which is the key metric. If you have a job that is only
| 10-20 hours a week, picking up another job with equal hours,
| while less ideal than holding one with twice the hours, is not
| worthy of the headlines.
| diob wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree that it's not worthy of headlines.
|
| One of the big trends I see with those 10-20 hr a week jobs, is
| that they are automated in terms of scheduling to try and
| optimize profit. In other words, they call you in for an 1hr on
| Monday, but then another 2 hrs later in the day. It's so
| chopped up that it's hard to coordinate a second job.
|
| And part of the automation is to also ensure employees don't
| accidentally hit full time, to avoid benefits.
|
| So now they hold two jobs, each chopping their day into tiny
| bits of unusable time (commute, prep, etc.). And neither has to
| pay any benefits.
|
| It's a win win for companies, and a lose lose for everyone
| else.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Are such short shifts legal in the US? Last time I worked
| retail in Canada the law was that if you were called in to
| work you had to be paid for at least 3 hours even if you were
| sent home.
| diob wrote:
| It's state by state, and at least in Arizona (where I'm
| from), there is no minimum.
|
| Link to our laws:
| https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-
| laws/sta...
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is why Uber/Lyft were so good. They allowed people to
| dodge the bin-packing problem by allowing someone to convert
| time and an asset smoothly into cash flow.
| pb7 wrote:
| I agree that companies should be disincentivized/punished for
| doing that. The overhead of an additional job can't be
| overstated.
|
| I would still like to see the total hours, but ideally the
| hours spent at each job, to see the depth of the problem. It
| would also help draw attention to the exact thresholds that
| businesses are abusing to draw up better legislature.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| I disagree. Generally working 40+ hours at one company brings
| significant benefits like health insurance or retirement plans.
| Working two part-time jobs wouldn't do that. Plus there's a
| significant cost with context switching. 40 hours at two jobs
| will have more overhead than 40 hours at one job.
| pb7 wrote:
| Agreed with all points and that's likely the case for the
| majority of these people. But there is probably still a non-
| trivial number of people that are working 32+ hours at one
| job and 10-20 at another that would fall into these
| statistics that would receive benefits. More data can't hurt.
| Existing laws are clearly being gamed.
|
| Edit: Also, these stats will exclude people that are working
| just one job but still under the benefits threshold which is
| not good either. "Working two jobs" is just too broad of a
| statement to be actionable.
| [deleted]
| doggodaddo78 wrote:
| It implies cheating workers out of healthcare and benefits,
| causing them more stress, and costs and time commuting.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Or it implies skilled people who would have had under the table
| side gigs are getting gig economy jobs because it's so easy and
| turnkey even if the pay is lower.
|
| Yeah people working part time are getting screwed out of
| benefits, but it's hard to tell whether that's rising or more
| side work is moving above the table.
| dantheman wrote:
| Really, you're saying there are unintended consequences to
| laws?
|
| Perhaps instead of trying to extract as much money out of the
| rest of the economy we should reduce medical costs.
| humanrebar wrote:
| I'm not sure it's fair to call them unintended consequences
| when this exact thing was predicted by skeptics when the law
| was passed.
| [deleted]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| It's not always that nefarious.
|
| At a past company we had certain manual labor tasks that had to
| be done by end of day, so work schedules were flexible. We
| offered full time with benefits, but there was still a lot of
| demand for part-time work. There are a lot of people out there
| who simply want to use extra time in the day to take on paying
| work. You get college students looking for a few hours after
| work, or parents who have to work around their kids school
| schedules, or older people who simply want to have something to
| do but aren't up for full-time jobs.
|
| There are also plenty of jobs where companies simply can't
| afford to pay someone 40 hours per week plus benefits. Hiring
| someone for 20 hours per week with no benefits is arguably
| better than not having that job in the economy at all.
|
| I'd love as much as anyone for the US to separate health care
| from employer-provided health insurance, but it's not really
| fair to blame companies for the failures of our politicians.
| minikites wrote:
| A reminder that wage theft is endemic to the types of jobs that
| people who work multiple jobs have. We absolutely need stronger
| worker protections in the form of actual punishments for business
| owners who shortchange workers, stronger labor union protections,
| and government-provided healthcare so people aren't held to their
| jobs at metaphorical gunpoint.
| judgemcjudgy wrote:
| "wage theft" - I think for those jobs the wage is known
| beforehand. If it is too low for you, don't take it. If
| somebody refuses to pay you the promised wage, that would be
| theft and a case for the law.
| glasss wrote:
| To be fair, I know a significant amount of people who work
| multiple jobs but they only really put in a few hours on the
| weekend. They are the minority though, and most 2 or 3 job
| workers I know do put in a significant >15 hours a week at each.
|
| I think the bigger thing beyond hours worked is commute and
| decompression time. I don't know anyone who, after working 6
| hours on a Saturday, is ready right away to go out and have fun
| with their friends. Everyone wants to come home, change clothes
| if needed, and relax a bit before moving onto to something else.
| That extra hour or so, not even including the commute, is a
| pretty big hit to your weekend time.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| We do this at my startup. Instead of hiring FTEs, we hire people
| for 10-30 hours per week. This is great for people that want to
| make more money than they could as an FTE, or for people that
| want to work more on side projects.
|
| It helps that we have no bullshit meetings, everything is async,
| and we take advantage of automating almost every aspect of the
| business.
|
| I've found that hiring contract devs for say 20 hours per week
| yields the same output as an FTE at 40. Why? Because we don't
| fill the rest of their week with bullshit.
| CivBase wrote:
| I wonder what the Census Bureau counts as a "job" here. Does
| having a monetized YouTube channel, Twitch stream, or OnlyFans
| account on the side count? What about monetizing a hobby you
| might still otherwise be doing with something like Etsy or
| Patreon? Driving for Uber or DoorDash on the side? A school
| teacher taking a part-time job over the summer? Hosting an
| Airbnb? Going door-to-door for the Census Bureau itself? Many of
| these are not necessarily indicative of economic turmoil.
|
| A data point missing from the article is how many _hours_ workers
| are committing to their jobs. I 'd consider that to be more
| important that just the number of jobs people have. The article
| clearly attributes the rise in multiple jobs to wage stagnation
| while the cost of living continues to rise - which does seem like
| a reasonable explanation. However, it's possible that at least
| some of the rise can be attributed to greater economic
| opportunity as people dip their toes into new markets without
| completely abandoning their traditional jobs which they may
| already have.
|
| EDIT: Others have pointed out that many employers have also
| stopped offering full-time work to avoid having to provide their
| employees with benefits. That would also contribute to a rise in
| multiple jobs without necessarily increasing the number of hours
| worked.
| mjfl wrote:
| This will certainly be made worse by raising the min wage, as
| suggested in the article, not helped. Contrary to the apparent
| popular opinion, companies aren't bottomless pits of money and
| many are barely surviving. How do people get away with having
| this fantasy as one of the central "truths" of their universes?
|
| Many of the barely surviving companies are those that employ
| "vulnerable people", think grocery stores- laser thin margins,
| managers that aren't actually making much more than employees.
| Nuking those businesses will improve the health of the job
| market? are you kidding me?
| bluntfang wrote:
| I think you make a good point here that a lot of people miss:
| we have things like cheap groceries because as a society we
| prey on vulnerable people. When do we accept that the reason we
| get to have avacados and limes year round everywhere in the
| country is because we are all collectively taking advantage of
| people? And we have to accept that if we want to take advantage
| of people less, our day to day will be more expensive.
| dudul wrote:
| Maybe going on a tangent here, but it's really the idea of a
| _federal_ minimum wage that doesn 't make sense to me. Cost of
| living can literally be an order of magnitude apart between 2
| given states.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| Because it's literally the minimum wage. States are free to
| raise it higher if their cost of living is higher, but it
| makes sense for the federal government to say "there is
| nowhere in the country where you can support a family on less
| than this dollar amount so everyone should have to pay at
| least this"
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| And differences can be a magnitude apart living in different
| parts of the state! I live in a major east coast city, where
| a small rowhome in my neighborhood is 200k+ in good
| condition.
|
| new houses in the state capitol 2 hours away? No problem
| coming in under 100K.
|
| So COL varies wildy even within a state, as is no surprise.
| dudul wrote:
| I don't disagree, this is just making my point even more :)
| And reinforces the original comment that a minimum wage
| that doesn't take these disparities into account may simply
| be a death blow for a lot of small businesses in low CoL
| areas.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| I love how Americans just think there is no other country that
| might have, say, higher minimum wages or socialized medicine.
| It's just impossible they say. Not sense in comparing or seeing
| other places approach, America is just too exceptional.
| jacob2484 wrote:
| Note that in Europe the economies are not as dynamic and has
| lower GDP growth on average. There are costs to higher taxes
| and more regulations. We're not exceptional, things are done
| differently.
| sand_castles wrote:
| > lower GDP growth on average
|
| Europe is the largest surplus region on the planet.
|
| I don't get where this idea came from, Europe does the most
| impressive technology, but doesn't constantly market
| themselves as well.
|
| US is the largest deficit ( needs to constantly import
| capital to just survive ) country on the planet.
|
| If your GDP growth comes from debt, then you are doing it
| wrong.
| pirocks wrote:
| This may have more to do with the US not getting blown up
| during WW2, and the US being the largest single market(in
| the sense that everyone speaks the same language, has same
| culture, comparable laws everywhere etc.). And less to do
| with good policies.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >This may have more to do with the US not getting blown
| up during WW2
|
| It's been 80yr and Japan and Korea are doing fine.
|
| The USSR basically force created a large single market
| over the course of its existence. If it was such a net
| win for prosperity the economic would have stuck around.
| naebother wrote:
| I always have to remind myself of our glorious GDP growth
| as I use food stamps to buy groceries after clocking out of
| a 12 hour shift at Walmart.
| mjfl wrote:
| Well, that GDP growth technically means you have a better
| opportunity to trade up in the USA than anywhere else in
| the world, if you apply yourself, get yourself trained,
| etc. you want to make people believe that these career
| choices are impossible to escape and they really aren't.
| rayiner wrote:
| Nobody says it's impossible, just that there are trade-offs.
| France has a monthly minimum wage that works out to under
| $12/hour on a 35 hour week. It also had 8.5-9.5% unemployment
| over the last few years before COVID, while the US was half
| that at 3.5-4.5%.
|
| Same thing with socialized medicine. Nobody says that
| socialized medicine is impossible, just that it requires a
| level of taxes nobody wants to pay. Again to use France as an
| example, health insurance is paid for with a 20% tax split
| between employers and employees: https://www.npr.org/template
| s/story/story.php?storyId=924192.... America could easily pay
| for socialized medicine with such a tax. That's not how any
| proponents of socialized medicine in America have proposed to
| pay for their proposal.
|
| Ironically, that's just a different form of American
| exceptionalism. "We can have high minimum wages and
| socialized medicine like Europe without having higher
| unemployment and higher middle class taxes like Europe."
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Nuking, how? Where do you think you are going to get your cheap
| bananas? Your bananas are going to go up from $0.29/lb to
| $0.39/lb and the grocery clerk is going to have a little more
| rent money.
| cobookman wrote:
| You assume the store wouldn't replace the grocery clerk with
| self-checkout machines or install an amazon go like-system.
|
| Robots & specialized technology solutions are year-over-year
| going down in cost. If labor continues the upwards cost
| trajectory we'd simply be accelerating the replacement of
| unskilled labor with robots.
|
| Great example is Knightscope. It's able to meet security
| guard compliance & insurance needs at an hourly rate cheaper
| than humans. And given enough time, I'm sure it'll end up
| more reliable. https://www.knightscope.com/
| anonAndOn wrote:
| The incremental cost of labor is not going to slow the
| arrival of a robotic Aldi. Fortunately, I have other
| grocery stores in the area and can spend my money at the
| one with the best quality AND service.
| csharptwdec19 wrote:
| > The incremental cost of labor is not going to slow the
| arrival of a robotic Aldi.
|
| No but it could speed it up. I'm certain plenty of big
| enough retail operation has a spreadsheet somewhere
| tracking the ROI on potential automation endeavors.
|
| > Fortunately, I have other grocery stores in the area
| and can spend my money at the one with the best quality
| AND service.
|
| Agreed, but are you in the majority with that? There's
| people who don't care about the long term impacts of,
| say, buying from an online retailer versus a local bike
| shop, but there's also a decent portion who's incomes
| mean it's either take the choice that's a little
| destructive to society, or not have any even-close-to-
| nice things for yourself.
| anonAndOn wrote:
| If you want to know what a race to the bottom looks like
| in the US grocery biz, just ask Tesco.[0] At the end,
| they were practically giving food away with ridiculous
| coupons and it still wasn't enough to keep people coming
| to their "fresh & sleazy" stores.
|
| [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-did-tesco-fail-in-
| the-us/
| frockington1 wrote:
| The automation in ordering at fast food places was visible
| immediately after several cities uped the minimum wage.
| Hurt the workers but my orders accuracy has gone up
| compared to the previous human system
| noahtallen wrote:
| Indeed, this is a great argument for UBI, since it will not
| be possible to maintain a job supply which can provide
| everyone with a life. :)
| klmadfejno wrote:
| That's a pretty terrible reason for UBI imo. If UBI is
| built to offset the lack of jobs, more people will choose
| not to work. If people choose not to work, the price of
| labor will go up. If the price of labor goes up, more and
| more labor will be outsourced to countries without UBI.
| It will create an underclass of non-citizens who don't
| get the luxury of UBI but live in an economy built for
| people who do.
| calvano915 wrote:
| People just choosing not to work in a thread about about
| ever-increasing numbers of workers with multiple jobs.
| Really??
| stu2b50 wrote:
| They would raise prices? Which would disproportionately affect
| me, who makes a good bit more than minimum wage, since I still
| buy from those vendors but my wage is not increasing.
|
| While lower income workers would have the prices raise on them,
| but less than by the amount that their page is rising (because
| the cost is also spread on people who won't have their wages
| increased).
|
| Which is fine by me. It can present a problem to positions
| like, say, academic adjunct, since those are budgetary and
| can't simply increase prices. But for the most part I don't see
| anything apocalyptic about a minimum wage increase.
| rland wrote:
| Raising minimum wage leads to efficiency gains, because
| companies automate their processes to remove labor from the
| equation.
|
| We can take care of those people who cannot sell their labor at
| above minimum wage. It's _not_ a law of the universe that they
| need to be exiled to starvation or eviction. (American
| corporations would _love_ to have you think so!) Of course,
| this means that if you own a big company like McDonalds and put
| all your workers out of a job by automating, you need to do
| your part to take care of them.
|
| When jobs are automated, overall revenue doesn't go down. It
| often goes up. It's a misallocation that the increased revenue
| doesn't go to displaced workers in the form of welfare.
|
| Groceries are already adapting: they employ fewer people than
| they did prior, especially in high-cost areas. They _already_
| are removing cheap labor: self checkout. The increase in
| productivity goes to the worker who still remains, in the form
| of a higher wage.
| sand_castles wrote:
| Raising the minimum wage in a vacuum is not doing to do much.
|
| The problem with the US is monopoly corporations, monopoly
| landlords, monopoly banks, monopoly educational institutions
| and monopoly governance, while the individual and the family
| unit is left to fend for themselves.
|
| Automating jobs does not always work out.
|
| Self-checkout counters are a nightmare if you are blind or
| cannot read the local language.
|
| A society that would value the wellbeing of the blind and
| weak would not try to automate everything.
| petermcneeley wrote:
| https://www.workforce.com/news/labor-and-benefits-expenses-i...
| If you doubled the employee wages the prices would increase
| less than 10%.
|
| If minimum wage went up these businesses would not disappear;
| prices would just simply increase.
|
| Most modest increases in minimum wage would simply result in
| income transfers from higher to lower.
| cambalache wrote:
| I suggest to decrease the minimum wage to 1 USD/h like in
| Mexico. Other option is that the bosses may give the employees
| a tract of land in rent as payment, they can keep a small
| portion of their production for themselves.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| What's the point of doing that? That's $2000 a year at full
| time. No American can even come close to living on that and
| frankly I would rather be unemployed
| cambalache wrote:
| Sarcasm
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Some Nordic countries, which usually come up at some point
| when discussing employment dynamics, do not have a minimum
| wage and yet no one earns only $1/h.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| Correlation not causation. They don't have minimum wage
| because they don't need minimum wage. This is like saying
| that antibiotics give you an infection because only people
| with an infection have antibiotics.
| radus wrote:
| Those same countries have very expansive social safety nets
| that are non-existent in the US.
| rayiner wrote:
| You mean like universal healthcare for low income people
| (Medicaid)? Or retirement security for low income people
| (Social security)? What exactly are you referring to?
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| If you have to put a qualifier in front of "universal
| healthcare" it's not universal healthcare
| cambalache wrote:
| Free college education
|
| 4-6 weeks of mandated paid vacation
|
| Substantial paid parental leave
|
| Option to opt in for half-time working and the companies
| are mandated to comply
|
| Universal healthcare not related to your job situation
| nor to the whims of the coverage of your health policy
|
| Option to join an union with no repercussion
|
| Any other question?
| bhupy wrote:
| Nobody doubts that Nordic countries have generous social
| safety nets, but I think rayiner is scoffing at the
| notion that the US's social safety net is "non-existent",
| which is laughable.
|
| The US spends close to 80% of its Federal budget on
| social programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social
| Security, EITC, SNAP/EBT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U
| nited_States_federal_budget#/...
|
| And that's not even including State-level welfare. Each
| State has its own unemployment insurance, welfare
| programs, and subsidized state university. In Georgia
| (where my alma mater is), university is essentially free
| if you can maintain a GPA > 3.5.
|
| On top of all that, the government is currently debating
| another big round of welfare and stimulus. A _Republican_
| has proposed a massive overhaul of welfare to provide up
| to $15,000 a year in cash for parents:
| https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22264520/mitt-romney-
| chec...
| dualthro wrote:
| > In Georgia (where my alma mater is), university is
| essentially free if you can maintain a GPA > 3.5.
|
| Why do I always see that the GA Tech OMSCS is ~$10,000?
| This is a serious question. If it's essentially free with
| a good GPA I might actually enroll.
| cambalache wrote:
| No, they earn substantially more than in America, which is
| exactly the opposite of what OP is proposing.
| bhupy wrote:
| No, they do not. Norway is the only Nordic country that
| has a higher median adult income, and it's not by a whole
| lot.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_pe
| r_c...
|
| These numbers are _after_ taxes and transfers, so they
| encode all of the welfare programs in the respective
| countries.
| mdip wrote:
| The devil's in the details. Last week, my wife started doing
| DoorDash. She's loving it. I accompanied her on one of the trips
| and _I_ enjoyed it. I thought, ya know, I like people, I enjoyed
| this a whole lot more than some of the other things I do for
| entertainment, I 'd do this with free time occasionally. Boom,
| second job.
|
| But then, I look back on my history as a developer. I've
| occasionally taken on some work. I sell things on
| e-bay/craigslist. I've always sort-of had a second income source,
| mainly to pay for things I would just go without -- phone
| upgrades, an extra vacation, etc.
|
| I don't _need_ it ... well, depending on how you look at the
| numbers, maybe I do, but is it all that strange?
|
| I'm a bad example, though. My wife has told practically everyone
| she knows and many of her friends/family have decided to start
| doing it. None _wanted_ a second job, though some surely needed
| it. None could take on a second _scheduled_ or _full time_ job
| but all had a few hours a week, a need for some extra cash, and
| found doing "gig work" to be a great fit. Many of them are
| simply making idle time more productive for themselves and they'd
| have _never_ gotten a second job if it these specific types of
| "second jobs" (frequently first[0]) didn't exist.
|
| [0] And I don't mean that as a "tragedy", either. Though there
| are stories of people barely scraping by, there are areas where
| the pay is far higher than other unskilled jobs (and many skilled
| in my area).
| calvano915 wrote:
| I'm curious of you and your wife's age. Seems as if those in
| late 40s to 60s have no hobbies except for working, and
| therefore are continually working jobs next to me throughout my
| 20s and 30s. Many in that older age bracket have benefits and
| retirement through other means, therefore not caring about lack
| of benefits from work and possibly being part of the no votes
| when my coworkers vote to unionize, not to mention occupying
| spot from a younger person who instead is a few rungs behind.
|
| This is not meant to be personal or attacking, but I'm curious
| how much of this applies or not to you and your wife.
|
| This is meant to demonstrate my general frustration with
| younger folks having many barriers to stability or opportunity
| by being crowded out politically and in the workforce by those
| who've had years more in better economic situations and just
| can't seem to develop a life that isn't revolving around
| consumerism and lacking in signifcant social/familial time
| investment.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I'm not in the age bracket you mention, but I have noticed
| that as I get older I simply enjoy accomplishing things
| alongside others.
|
| In my early 20s I worked hard, but I also couldn't wait to
| get out of the office and hang out with my friends. As I get
| older, I still hang out with my friends when I can, but I
| also really enjoy interacting with work peers and getting
| things done at work.
|
| Even in my off time, I find myself preferring to do projects
| around the house or yard rather than watch yet another show
| on Netflix or waste more time scrolling social media.
|
| > This is meant to demonstrate my general frustration with
| younger folks having many barriers to stability or
| opportunity by being crowded out politically and in the
| workforce by those who've had years more in better economic
| situations It's interesting to see this in contrast to
| complaints on HN that older developers are crowded out of the
| workforce by companies that prefer to hire younger
| developers. Perhaps it's more likely that breaking into good
| jobs is just hard in general, and it's easier to blame your
| older or younger peers.
|
| > and just can't seem to develop a life that isn't revolving
| around consumerism and lacking in signifcant social/familial
| time investment.
|
| Someone in their 50s or 60s is likely more interested in
| securing their retirement than simple consumerism. That's
| about the age it becomes obvious that you physically can't
| work forever, and you need a decent chunk of money in the
| bank if you want to do fun things in retirement.
|
| As for social/family time investment: Someone in their late
| 40s through 60s might have raised kids to adulthood, who are
| now off doing their own thing. It can be a shock to go from
| constant family time at home to having nothing to do. Not
| uncommon for them to return to work to fill the void with
| some activity, a way to continue getting things done, and to
| simply socialize with coworkers.
| ghaff wrote:
| I've never had what I'd consider a "second job." But I've had
| side streams of (a bit of) income whether one-offs or something
| more long-term. It's always something I've done mostly because
| I found it interesting and I haven't needed the extra money but
| I've never exactly minded it either.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > making idle time more productive for themselves
|
| this may be me projecting my own sensibilities (and sorry if i
| am misinterpreting) but.... why cant people just hang out, take
| some time off and relax with friends?
|
| why does everything have to be about "productivity" ?
| adkadskhj wrote:
| For me everything i do is about productivity, but that's
| because i have more things i'm interested in than i have time
| or energy.
|
| My play time is 100% about maximizing my enjoyment and
| regeneration, to get me back to doing the things i really
| enjoy doing. Even my casual, lounge time is a calculated
| effort at that.
|
| Now hopefully i have a healthy balance. I don't work myself
| too hard because i don't want to burn out. I'm also less
| productive if i'm burning out.
|
| But yea. I just enjoy building things. It's who i am. If i
| had one wish it would be to not need sleep. With those extra
| hours i'd learn to woodwork or something physical, but still
| build - create.
|
| My only regret is that my ability to build (software) is
| limited per day, and i give a significant portion of that to
| the necessities of life. Aka work. It's not making me rich,
| nor is it things i truly want to solve. But hey, i still
| enjoy it - and for that i am truly fortunate.
|
| After seeing what my wife went through working retail; I
| can't imagine having to work retail. It was awful.
| missedthecue wrote:
| It's the only way to increase the net standard of living, and
| richer, healthier, more comfortable conditions is generally a
| common human interest.
|
| We could have stopped increasing our productivity in 1820,
| but I doubt most people today would like living at an 1820s
| standard, and in 200 years time, I think people will be glad
| they aren't living at a 2020's standard.
| syntaxing wrote:
| I totally agree with this. The point of being productive is
| to integrate and contribute to society, not dedicate your
| life to society. It shouldn't be about squeezing every last
| ounce out of an employee but somehow, that's what the
| American dream has become.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Nothing wrong with that.
|
| However, after spending almost a year hanging out at home and
| relaxing, it's actually kind of nice to get out and _do_
| something.
|
| And of course, to each their own. Some people just enjoy
| accomplishing things and don't like sitting still. Others
| prefer to spend their idle time relaxing as much as possible.
| Neither is inherently wrong, and there's no reason to shame
| either group.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| US wages have reached an all-time high, powered by strong growth
| during the Covid recession[1]. With higher compensation it makes
| sense that more people would trade off leisure to work additional
| hours at attractive pay. Including getting a second job.
|
| [1]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > US wages have reached an all-time high, powered by strong
| growth during the Covid recession
|
| Translation: employment losses were strong at the bottom and
| light at the top, leaving the average wages of the remaining
| employed workers much higher.
|
| > With higher compensation it makes sense that more people
| would trade off leisure to work additional hours at attractive
| pay. Including getting a second job.
|
| I would be very surprised if the distribution of who is getting
| second jobs is consistent with that "a sinking tide lifts all
| boats" fairy tale rather than it being concentrated in the same
| segments where unemployment has gone up the most and
| representing instead people who would otherwise be
| underemployed due to limited hours available in the primary job
| backfilling with a second, possibly lower-paying-per-hour job.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| Although labor market recomposition plays a role. There's a
| major shortage of semi-skilled blue collar labor, leading to
| some of the strongest wage increases of any sectors in 2020.
| This includes construction[1], manufacturing[2], and
| logistics[3]. These workforces tend to skew older, and hence
| were more affected by workers dropping out due to Covid
| fears.
|
| Unlike traditional white collar professions, these are
| industries where workers are likely to take a second job.
| Particularly during boom periods when pay is attractive. It's
| very likely that at least some of the increase in second jobs
| is driven by rising secular wages in semi-skilled blue collar
| jobs.
|
| [1]https://www.tradesmeninternational.com/news-events/the-
| const... [2]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/11/ma
| nufacturing... [3]https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-
| ports/warehouse-worker-scar...
| alacombe wrote:
| Given the sheer unemployment numbers and the amount of forced
| closures, this doesn't make _any_ sense...
| judgemcjudgy wrote:
| Isn't that statistic misleading without mentioning working hours?
| Maybe some of those "multiple jobs" are just one day a week.
| Perhaps a stay at home mother earns some extra money on Tuesday
| by taking her neighbors dogs for a walk, and on Thursdays by
| cleaning at a shop.
|
| This "multiple jobs" headline suggests people are working more
| than one shift every day, which may be completely misleading.
| Maybe some people actually do that, but if they had hard data on
| that, I think they would have explicitly mentioned it, instead of
| their suggestive writing.
| l72 wrote:
| Having multiple family members and friends that work in retail or
| the food industry, this is very common among them. From what I
| can tell, this happens for two major reasons:
|
| 1. The pay is too low, so a second job is required. If you are
| making $12/hour (which is pretty good for retail), that is only
| $25k/year at full time, which is not enough to support yourself
| and certainly not a family. Raising the minimum wage, providing
| health insurance, and paid time off could definitely help here.
|
| 2. So many companies refuse to have employees work full time. It
| seems like it is impossible to get a job at any big box retail or
| food company that will actually work you 40 hours per week. I
| assume this has to due with not wanting to pay out benefits for
| full time work. It seems like most of my family members and
| friends hover just under 30 hours per week. Even if they were
| making $15-18/hour, at less than 30 hours per week plus no
| benefits, this doesn't cut it. So they end up with a second job
| where they are also part time. And balancing two part time jobs,
| both with schedules that constantly change, is incredibly
| difficult and stressful.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I would rather work 40 hours without benefits than 29 hours
| without benefits and then trying to fit in an extra 11-20 at
| another place every week(also without benefits).
|
| What a short sighted rule enacted by the government. I don't
| see how they didn't recognize what would invariably result.
| l72 wrote:
| I think most people would agree. The federal government had
| good intentions, but of course, large businesses found a way
| around it, which just screwed over the employees even more.
|
| But even 40 hours at $12/hour with no benefits is not
| something you can survive on in the long term. It's not like
| there are very many advancements or raises either. You might
| be surprised to learn, that the manager at many of these
| retail stores only earn about $2 more than their floor
| employees. So that's where you cap out, unless you some how
| have connections and get into regional or corporate hq.
|
| I am not sure what the government can do. It seems like any
| rules they make, business will find loopholes. In my opinion,
| retail workers and food industry workers need a union. That
| is the only way they are ever going to get full time work,
| benefits, and better pay.
| Gustomaximus wrote:
| > I am not sure what the government can do
|
| Obviously a bunch of detail but broadly it doesn't seem
| that hard if govt bases off solutions that work in other
| countries. For example these 3 things could make a huge
| change for the positive;
|
| 1) Universal or similar health care like rest of Western
| world so this is not tied to a job.
|
| 2) Better minimum wage
|
| 3) Casual minimum wage loading at X% premium vs full time
| minimum wage so there is a business cost to flexible
| scheduling.
|
| I think gig economy is the harder one to deal with going
| forward. You need some freedom for people to sideline in
| markets but not have companies abuse this. Maybe something
| is needed like if X amount of people do more than X hours
| in a month companies response are responsible to ensure
| their minimum wage. So a small gig environment can operate,
| but if.you have thousands of people doing 15+ hours a month
| the company needs to step up... there'd be lots of cracks
| in that though.
| matz1 wrote:
| With the rise of remote working its becoming easier for tech
| worker to collect multiple full time salaries too.
| tudelo wrote:
| I hear a lot of people saying they want to do this or that they
| could do this but... I would love to hear more stories about
| how it works in practice. Like, isn't there some level of legal
| liability, whether justified or not, that you would be opening
| yourself up to by doing this? Especially if the companies are
| in any way related, which could probably be hard to quantify.
| matz1 wrote:
| I know at least 1 friend doing this. Of course you don't tell
| the company know you are doing this. It require good time
| management for sure. The risk are low.
| mnouquet wrote:
| > isn't there some level of legal liability
|
| I technically have 3 jobs, two unrelated "full-time" SE
| roles, and 1 mom&pop store where I handle all but day-to-day
| operations (handled by the gf).
|
| To be cold bloody honest, unless you are SE for a serie-A
| start-up a 40h weeks is probably 20h work, 20h bs. If you
| were SE for a serie-A start-up, a 40h week would probably be
| 80h-paid-20h anyway.
| rjbwork wrote:
| >I technically have 3 jobs, two unrelated "full-time" SE
| roles,
|
| You mean to say that you are collecting two paychecks under
| the pretense of each company thinking you are working full
| time?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I worked at a company where a remote worker tried this. It
| only lasted a few months because the decline in his
| performance was more obvious than he thought. He also
| suddenly become more difficult to schedule meetings around
| because he was pulled between two companies.
|
| Corporate counsel said it wouldn't be worth pursuing anything
| against him. He won't get any positive references from
| anyone, because he tried to make the two-job situation work
| by shifting more work to his teammates and doing the bare
| minimum to not get fired.
|
| The real risk is that the companies find out about each other
| and you lose both jobs. This is a real possibility if your
| new employer does a background check and calls the old
| employer to confirm start and end dates, which I suspect will
| become standard practice in any remote company going forward.
|
| The only way the two-jobs scenario works out for anyone is if
| you can find two companies where both managers aren't good at
| managing performance. Either that, or if you're a superhuman
| developer who can actually put in the equivalent of two
| 40-hour workweeks with the same energy for both companies, in
| which case you're better off getting a single 40-hour FAANG
| job that pays as much as two normal jobs anyway.
| dominotw wrote:
| Weird to downvote this. I know atleast 2 ppl in my group who
| have 2 tech jobs.
| mnouquet wrote:
| Strongly agree !
| trts wrote:
| When I was in college and early 20s, I usually had 2-4 different
| jobs at any given time.
|
| There's a demographic component to this that seems missing, given
| that we have two big baby booms behind Gen Xers (millennials who
| I guess are old now) and Gen Z.
|
| Is the share of workers 20-30 today higher than the share among
| 20-30 year olds in 1996?
| john_moscow wrote:
| Companies offer part-time jobs instead of full-time ones because
| then they don't need to offer benefits that are required for a
| full-time job. In other words, the current rules of the game are
| directly incentivizing this behavior.
|
| The incentive can be very easily removed by legislating that a
| part-time job would need to offer a fraction of the benefits
| proportional to the amount of hours the employee works per week.
|
| Ideally, there should be some sort of a credit transfer
| mechanism, where an employee working multiple part-time jobs that
| combine to 40+ hours a week could get benefits equivalent to a
| full-time job at one of the workplaces, proportionally covered by
| all employers.
|
| Another option would be to crack down on monopolies and large
| chains. If you employ 10000 corporate drones, who are expected to
| follow the same corporate instructions day-to-day and can be
| swapped out by a fresh hire without any loss of productivity,
| they by definition don't have any economic leverage. On the other
| hand, if the same market niche is occupied by 1000 independent
| 10-employee companies, the overall efficiency is lower, but the
| leverage of each employee (and the salary they can negotiate
| through supply/demand) is higher. Because in a smaller company
| you are someone the owner trusts to delegate part of their
| business, and not just a line on the spreadsheet.
| AshWolfy wrote:
| or if those 10000 workers were in a union we could maintain
| productivity while putting workers on a more even playing field
| in negotiations
| grecy wrote:
| > _Ideally, there should be some sort of a credit transfer
| mechanism, where an employee working multiple part-time jobs
| that combine to 40+ hours a week could get benefits equivalent
| to a full-time job at one of the workplaces, proportionally
| covered by all employers._
|
| There's actually a much simpler solution - divorce basic human
| rights (healthcare) from the employer.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| And preferably from insurance companies too.
| foolmeonce wrote:
| Why not just get rid of the connection between employer and
| benefits? Employer pays cash, tax system allow people to manage
| roth/health/etc accounts based on caps and percentages of
| earned income.
|
| If the free market was supposed to handle the distortion of
| employer benefit programs, then every employee would need to
| monitor their employer's yearly benefit negotiations such that
| 10-20% of them would be giving notice on the basis of any
| negative benefit change. That isn't happening.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Ah, but that would be socialism. Sure, many other countries
| are doing it, and it's working quite well, but it's
| socialism, and we all know that socialism is bad, so this
| must be bad.
| creddit wrote:
| Not only is the snark in your reply annoying and take away
| any point you wanted to make, but also it's not socialism
| so it's an even worse take.
| john_moscow wrote:
| Socialism creates another bunch of perverse incentives. If
| you let a central system manage everyone's funds without
| competing against dozens of other parallel systems, the
| management's incentive would be to appropriate as much of
| the funds as possible as management expenses, as long as
| they won't be called out and fired/jailed.
|
| In the current climate, they would create numerous equity
| and social justice committees, making sure that everyone
| gets a personalized pat on the back and 10% of the
| population will get a small bonus, while 50% of the funds
| will be spent on the friends of the management sitting in
| the committees. Anyone trying to call out the corruption
| will be immediately called racist/sexist by the media, and
| the economic state of an Average Joe will continue
| declining at even faster pace.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > If you let a central system manage everyone's funds
| without competing against dozens of other parallel
| systems, the management's incentive would be to
| appropriate as much of the funds as possible as
| management expenses.
|
| How is this different than the current US situation
| across _multiple industries_ , especially in the medical
| field? Except that in the case of socialism you can
| actually vote the leadership out while under the current
| oligarchy your only recourse is to complain on Twitter.
| spamizbad wrote:
| That's completely unfair: In addition to Twitter US
| capitalism also gives you the option of GoFundMe. You can
| utilize both at the same time too!
| john_moscow wrote:
| >How is this different than the current US situation
| across multiple industries, especially in the medical
| field?
|
| The current mess with the medical field happens because
| the hospitals can charge you whatever they think you can
| afford to pay. You can't compare quotes, pick a
| reasonable bidder and pay what you were quoted for. Sure,
| each case is unique and sometimes there are unforeseen
| circumstances, but currently the majority of out-of-the-
| network medical billing is just outright extortion. And,
| of course, it's done in the name of a great cause. "We
| are doing it out of necessity to pay for those poor folks
| that cannot afford healthcare". Except, most of this
| money is landing in the pockets of administrators [0].
|
| >Except that in the case of socialism you can actually
| vote the leadership out while under the current oligarchy
| your only recourse is to complain on Twitter.
|
| In the current situation you could vote for someone that
| would offer to bring more transparency and competition to
| medical billing. Except, you won't get a chance because
| people benefiting from the current system and people
| owning mainstream media play golf together and intend
| doing it for years to come.
|
| [0] https://www.athenahealth.com/knowledge-hub/practice-
| manageme...
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >In the current climate, they would create numerous
| equity and social justice committees, making sure that
| everyone gets a personalized pat on the back and 10% of
| the population will get a small bonus, while 50% of the
| funds will be spent on the friends of the management
| sitting in the committees.
|
| Huh? We currently have a "single payer" health insurance
| system in the United States. It's called Medicare[0].
|
| And the administrative costs of that system are ~17 times
| less (~2% for Medicare and ~34% for private insurers[2])
| than that of the administrative costs of private
| insurers[1].
|
| As such, I'm not really sure how you're assessing this.
| I'd add that administrative expenses for other national
| healthcare systems are also much lower (Canada ~17%[2])
| than private insurers.
|
| Please provide examples and data for your assertions. I'd
| certainly like to see such data and information, as it
| doesn't comport with the data and analyses I've seen.
|
| [0] https://www.medicare.gov/what-medicare-covers/your-
| medicare-...
|
| [1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/sep/20/ber
| nie-s/c...
|
| [2] https://www.healio.com/news/primary-
| care/20200106/a-third-of...
| [deleted]
| onetimeusename wrote:
| I would like this. It would simplify how I manage my own
| finances. For example, my 401(K), healthcare, dental, and
| insurance plans are all tied into poorly made apps I have to
| manage through an employee dashboard.
|
| On the other hand, my personal finances are pretty easily
| managed through much better apps and services I selected
| myself.
|
| If I just received cash compensation, I could manage my own
| finances much more easily.
| nickff wrote:
| Companies often select benefits providers based on ease-of
| use for the corporate customer rather than the end user.
| Shifting the purchasing decision to the end user will
| change incentives for the benefits providers.
| munk-a wrote:
| Unfortunately moving that bargaining to the individual
| level would also result in a lack of negotiating power.
| What with forced arbitration and restrictions on class
| action suits being a thing the legal system can't
| properly serve a large number of individual bargainers
| that all individually suffered small damages in a just
| manner.
|
| Collective bargaining comes with a lot of benefits -
| doing it at the employer level is just extremely
| unfortunate for jobless persons.
| nickff wrote:
| Collective bargaining is most useful when the 'little
| guy' has few options, or the switching costs are very
| high. Consumers seem to do well when purchasing other
| types of insurance, and I think they'd do well to get rid
| of the principal agent problem (if they can keep the tax
| benefits).
|
| I think the biggest problems with employer-provided
| benefits come at the 'employment transients' (i.e. the
| time just after leaving jobs and while getting new ones).
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| There's been only garbage replies to your question, which is
| really unfortunate. In reality, we aren't that far away from
| being able to do this.
|
| If you are a 1099/gig worker and file your taxes with a
| schedule C, you're almost certainly eligible for a SEP-IRA
| (1). This is way better than a 401k; you can contribute up to
| 25% of your income (max $57k per year) pretax with all the
| same investment options as any other retirement plan. Sure,
| it could be made easier to setup, but it's been around
| forever and works. What we need to do is say that if you have
| an employer who does not provide a [baseline] retirement
| plan, you are eligible for the SEP-IRA on all income from
| that employer.
|
| The Covid-19 relief legislation established unemployment
| assistance for 1099/gig workers with federal backing and
| administered by the states. This should be kept around,
| improved, and made sustainable (add a line to the Schedule SE
| for paying the same kind of unemployment taxes that
| businesses pay on behalf of employees).
|
| Obamacare allowed for association-based health plans and the
| Trump administration approved one of them. I don't recall the
| details or the current status, but that's a start in the
| right direction. Employers pay a lot of money for health
| plans and their size allows them to negotiate better deals.
| We need that leverage outside of employers and plenty of
| other improvements, but at least we have the basics.
|
| This is achievable!
|
| (1) https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-
| faqs-r...
| jschwartzi wrote:
| The other component is decoupling health care and dental
| insurance from employment. Because that's a far bigger
| problem than retirement. A lot of people lost their jobs
| last year and suddenly had to pay full price on their
| insurance to keep going to their doctor.
|
| The whole insurance system in the US is best described as a
| real-life re-enactment of The Trial by Franz Kafka.
| ghaff wrote:
| Dental insurance isn't really insurance. It's a benefit
| that exists mostly because it's tax advantaged. [1]
| Health insurance is, of course, really insurance. With
| Obamacare the biggest issue is probably that it's really
| expensive to pay for a good insurance plan (or even a not
| so good insurance plan) on your own. Though, honestly,
| not so cheap even with employer participation.
|
| [1] By not really insurance, I mean that most people with
| it (especially older people) may consider it a nice perk
| but it doesn't really protect them from out-of-pockets
| they can't afford.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| What is the average yearly take home of people working
| multiple part-time jobs though?
|
| Most people live bill to bill, probably more-so those less
| advantaged.
|
| How many would really be able and or willing to save like
| that?
|
| Isn't the more simple answer getting rid of this crazy
| system and profit incentives by nationalizing healthcare?
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| There is nothing simple. You just have to accept this.
| It's really appealing to create the perfect system, but
| it is just not going to happen. I'm sorry. It's not going
| to happen.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Even just eliminating the whole 401(k) shit show by
| converting them to IRAs and raising the contribution limits
| for IRAs to ~$25k (roughly the sum total of what a W2
| employee can contribute to an IRA + 401(k) combined) would
| solve the retirement account problem fairly efficiently.
| I'd be willing to bet that could be accomplished with
| approximately a page or two of legislation.
|
| Edit: The problem is "lack of political will," _i.e._. lack
| of people or corporations willing to hire lobbyists to make
| it happen.
|
| Edit 2: While we're at it, why not just let everybody make
| Roth contributions, at least up to the amount one could
| contribute to an IRA? Let's just get rid of the whole
| "backdoor Roth" shenanigans and let people contribute
| directly.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| This right here. Benefits shouldn't be tied to employer. Pay
| me more and let me control my money.
| munk-a wrote:
| If folks are losing their jobs (assuming they don't have a
| nest egg which the majority of Americans do not have) how
| will they be better off being personally unable to pay for
| health care instead of losing access to their employer
| provided insurance to pay for healthcare?
|
| Also - a lot of these benefits are things we'd generally
| consider "necessary" - if that's the case why would we open
| the door wider to allowing folks to continue being paid
| 7.25/hr and now not even have a chance at ever seeing a
| doctor?
|
| _Or_ , if that money is personally controlled is it going
| to be secured against debt repayment? Will individuals have
| a guaranteed right to pay for medical care before any
| paycheck garnishing?
| nightski wrote:
| I don't mean to speak for the parent but I'm pretty sure
| it's implied in this scenario that you'd move to
| universal health care.
| munk-a wrote:
| I don't think so - the implication I read from "Pay me
| more and let me control my money." was an entirely
| private individual insurance market. If I misread the
| comment my apologies.
| bumby wrote:
| > _legislating that a part-time job would need to offer a
| fraction of the benefits proportional_
|
| I mean, I think you're spot on with the incentives but but I
| worry that your proposed solution would just take what is
| already a complicated system related to benefits like
| healthcare and just turn it into a bigger rats nest. It's hard
| enough for people to navigate providers for in-network
| services, then haggle with insurance companies etc. I can't
| imagine if this was fractured along different more complicated
| means.
|
| I know it may be a pipe dream in the US but it seems like a
| better solution would be to divorce benefits from employers
| entirely through a single payer system
| [deleted]
| threwaway4392 wrote:
| What benefits are we talking here? I presume mostly healthcare,
| though I may me missing something. What you suggest is overly
| complex compared to untying health care from work. In many
| countries healthcare is not tied to work.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| ...including the US when you look more closely at Medicare
| and Medicaid.
|
| At least that holds true for a lot of peoples.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Making the cost of healthcare visible to everyone that
| currently thinks their employer is screwing them with $100
| premiums isn't exactly going to get in the way of a better
| system.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Or, we could just realize that when you say "benefits," what
| you're mostly talking about is stuff like health insurance,
| which can be handled more efficiently by moving to a single
| payer system. I don't have a reference immediately handy, but
| there was a study done a little before the 2016 elections that
| pointed out how single payer (essentially Medicare for All)
| would reduce costs throughout the healthcare system, while
| still providing an excellent quality of care.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| > I don't have a reference immediately handy, but there was a
| study done a little before the 2016 elections
|
| A more recent survey of studies looking at single payer
| healthcare plans found[0]:
|
| "The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer
| system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in
| America and save money.
|
| Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of
| California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost
| impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States
| and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS
| Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield
| net savings over several years. In fact, it's the only way to
| rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.
|
| All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation,
| showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the
| Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found
| about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-
| payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in
| America would have high-quality health care coverage."
|
| [0] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371
| /jo...
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Thanks for backing me up on this.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Years ago I worked in retail as a night stocker. When I was
| hired, I was hired part time. Most other new employees were as
| well for the reason mentioned in this comment.
|
| Eventually, the company underwent a large merger with two other
| regional retail chains. After this, they decided to go back to
| the grandfathered full time employees outside management and
| gave them an ultimatum: be dropped down to part time or take a
| small severance package and leave. Well, most decided they
| would take the severance. I decided since I was finally
| starting my software career, working some part time contracts,
| that I would take the opportunity to demand and wage, reduced
| hours, and control of my schedule. It worked at the time,
| probably because of their inability to hire and retain
| employees, albeit the raise was pathetic. Eventually however,
| they started shifting more and more responsibilities on us and
| the work was taking much longer because the newest hires we're
| not very good. I started spending more time there and often
| wouldn't go home till mid morning. I decided I didn't need it
| and just quit on the spot. A few months later, the company
| ended up filing for bankruptcy.
| doanerock wrote:
| Or actually solve the problem and stop making companies offer
| health care. This is a stupid system. So many people worry
| about losing their job in fear of loosing their health care. So
| many people do not have healthcare because they do not have a
| job. A job and healthcare should not be connected is any way.
| dotdi wrote:
| > They also noted that multiple-job holding occurred at all
| levels of income
|
| Ok, I LOL'd when I read this one. Of course it occurred at all
| levels of income, how else are some people going to pay for their
| second private jet if they aren't sitting in multiple boards of
| directors?
| tboyd47 wrote:
| > Those juggling more than one occupation earned less, on
| average, than people who had only one job.
|
| I would like to see a more detailed breakdown on why that is. I
| thought that perhaps there would be more information in the
| source paper, but these journalists at Reuters have shared
| neither the title nor the names of the authors with us.
|
| I haven't found anything similar to what's being reported on
| either the U.S. Commerce Dept. or the U.S. Census webpages.
|
| Where is the source paper?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-18 23:00 UTC)