McJobs: Don't Knock 'Em
When I first heard reports of McDonald's expression of corporate outrage over the inclusion of the word "McJob" in Merriam-Webster's latest dictionary as a synonym for a dead end job, I'll admit that I rolled my eyes and chalked it up as yet another example of PCidity gone amok. "Lighten up, guys," I thought.
But this article in today's Wall Street Journal points out some very good reasons why we ought to think twice before tossing aspersions in the direction of such jobs.
After all, a big reason these jobs are low-paying is that they are generally first jobs: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nhttp://www.ericsiegmund.com/scgi-bin/mt.cgi#early two out of three food-counter and fountain workers are 16 to 19 years old (which also explains the high proportion without high-school diplomas). To define such jobs as requiring "little skill" overlooks the more salient factor here, which has to do with the general disciplines they help instill in a mostly beginning work force: courtesy, punctuality, neatness, etc.
Ditto for opportunity. Put simply, most of these much-denigrated burger-flippers are not supporting a family. Precisely because these jobs are low-paying, they provide a ladder into the American workplace.
Notwithstanding laments to the contrary, this ladder of opportunity remains a fact of American life. In a recent study of earnings mobility in California, economist Michael Dardia of the Bay Area's Sphere Institute found that for most young people minimum-wage jobs such as those in retail or fast food are only a temporary stop on the way up. "Condemning retail jobs as 'dead-end' jobs misses the point that these are primarily entry-level jobs for entering or part-time workers," says Mr. Dardia. "The important issue is where workers end up -- not where they start."
And, in a revelation that succeeded in making me feel about three inches tall, the article states that McDonald's itself has a special category of positions which it calls "McJobs": a 20-year-old program that trains the mentally and physically handicapped for jobs they otherwise might never get.
I'm not proposing that the dictionary publishers should ignore the popular usage of terms or words...they're just trying to describe the realities of language usage. But perhaps the general public (including me) needs to better understand the implications of some of those words before throwing them around.
Bryan, I'm not sure what your point is, although I agree with your perception. But to me, that's yet another instance where the job is being filled by people who have no expectation or desire for something other than a job. Retirees aren't looking for a stepping-stone in a career, and some of those folks are using that job as a bridge to cover the gap between social security and living expenses. What would they do if they didn't have that alternative?
Of course, I won't make a big deal out of your math...your point is still a valid one. ;-)
Posted by: Eric at November 14, 2003 01:19 PMbryan, it's 34, not 44!!!
Posted by: Bert at November 14, 2003 01:50 PMDoh! (slaps head) {dangit, Jim, I'm a journalist, not a mathmatician!}
My point was that the writer seems to be spinning this McD's way (is he a corporate flack for the restaurant industry? I can't tell, since the article is in the subscription section of WSJ).
But though the concept of McJobs is almost always invoked to convey a grim future where middle-aged fathers are forced to trade in well-paid positions on the Ford factory line for a McDonald's spatula, more often than not the process works in reverse.
Is that true? To me, McJob just meant a low-paying job with little chance for (or desire for) advancement. They are dead-end in the sense that nobody wants to retire as a burger-flipper. I think that's pretty well understood.
Let's look at the dictionary definition again:
McJob (mek jäb') n. a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement.
Hmm.
low-paying job True.
that requires little skill True.
provides little opportunity for advancement True (although there's always shift supervisor!)
There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the definition to me.
Again, to me it just seems like the guy is trying to spin things to be other than they are.
Posted by: Bryan at November 15, 2003 09:21 PMFYI, yes, I did work at mcdonalds once. I was busted from burger boy to counter help. Guess I couldn't make the burgers fast enough (it couldn't have been my shining personality with the customers).
Posted by: bryan at November 15, 2003 09:23 PM(it couldn't have been my shining personality with the customers).
Maybe it was the way you made change.
(Sorry; I just couldn't resist! ;-)
Posted by: Eric at November 15, 2003 10:41 PMAbout the publisher
Random Abbye photos...
Random Thursday: The Abbreviated Tuesday Political Edition
More rattler than meets the eye
Poop happens. And then disappears.
How the West was Won
Beware of Vampire Dog
Tieing? There's no tieing in gymnastics!
NBC Bungles Web Video
Random Thursday: The Monday Olympics Edition
On Holiday
Random Thursday
Chair Play
Book Review: "The Road"
Education is paramount. Well, next to jet skiing.
Warbirds, Old and New
The Neighborhood:
West Texas Blogs:
[Midland unless otherwise indicated]
Other Texas Blogs:
The Business:
The Church:
The World:
2 out of 3 sounds like so many until you look at it in percentages. 2 out of 3 is 66 percent. That's 44 percent that don't belong to first-timers or high school kids. I see a lot of middle-aged women and elderly at my local McDs.
Posted by: bryan at November 14, 2003 12:43 PM