

He's 'the only bag boy at Publix with an MBA' - edw519
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/workinglife/hes-the-only-bag-boy-at-publix-with-an-mba/1066065

======
jeromec
I have a lot of respect for this guy. The thing that disturbed me most from
the article was this:

 _People walking to their cars and getting in their cars and sitting in their
cars while he's still loading the bags from the cart. No "thank you." No
nothing. Just a trunk thump and shift to reverse._

I could never be so cold and snobby. Geez, we're all human no matter what our
station in life. What if the person pulled out and got immediately broadsided
by a speeding car and this guy had to perform CPR on them?

------
maximilian
When we moved to San Diego, my girlfriend couldn't find a job and ended up
working at a coffee shop and school for minimum wage. Luckily California
requires that all jobs pay minimum wage, even if you make tips. With tips she
ends up with maybe $15/hr, which is livable for us.

Working at a grocery store would drive me nuts. I worked at one in the summer
in high school and I dreaded every single second. My singular purpose that
underlies everything I do, is to not have to work a job like at a grocery
store.

------
dschobel
Why wouldn't publix leap at the opportunity and at least make him manager of
the store. I can't imagine they get many MBAs at that level. Why not actually
put his skills to good use?

~~~
andrewljohnson
You're assuming he has a lot of skills. I have a business degree myself, and
it wasn't very hard to get, and it doesn't guarantee I'm good at any one
useful thing.

He may have gotten laid off from his six-figure job because of the economy,
but if he's capable, he should be able to move down the chain, but stay a
little above bag-boy at Publix.

Why can't he get a lower-paying office job? What's this guy's real story?
Maybe it has more to do with unwillingness to relocate and the state of the
micro-economy he lives in.

~~~
electromagnetic
I know in the UK there was a big problem with degree programs. The UK
government has 'encouraged' so many students to go to universities to get
degrees that it has destroyed many industries. I worked on several jobs with a
plumber who earned 6-figures and the guy hadn't touched a used toilet in
years, why? Because the shortage of trades is so prevalent that he could opt
not to unclog toilets and sinks because he had enough work fitting boilers and
maintaining heating and gas systems that the usual "bread and butter" of a
plumbers job didn't even touch the side plate of his finances.

What happens to the university grads? Well my local supermarket had a nice
selection of degree qualified workers. The guy who worked the Deli counter had
a degree in forensics, one of the stock boys I knew personally and he had a
degree in economics.

I don't know the situation in the US, but job selection for degree students in
the UK can be seriously hyper-competitive in many areas. If you lose your job,
for whatever reason, there can be literally no other job on the market because
there's already a dozen workers with lower pay expectations.

This, sadly, leaves jobs in the trades wide open and the governments have to
bring in immigrants, often training them up in the process to do the job. The
government, at least in the UK, needs to organize its departments. Education
isn't serving the industries, which increases immigration and increases
unemployment of those born with citizenship.

------
andrewljohnson
I think it's admirable that he took a job at Publix to support his family, but
he really shouldn't put that on his resume if he wants a high-paying job
again.

Also, this guy is a smart MBA? Why doesn't he figure out a way to make some
money? Any capable MBA with roots in a community should be able to start a
small business, particularly if his wife is making sure the family doesn't
starve.

~~~
awa
They mention in the article that they had to move since his wife got a new
job. So, they may not have the roots in the community. Also the local economy
seems much worse than rest of the country (with unemployment being higher) and
raising money in the condition is probably hard

Also, starting your own thing require a lot of skills/resources which few are
capable of, with a straight out of college job and lots of years in the
industry starting a business might seem more difficult than just hunting for a
new job while working on a low paying one. And nobody said he was a smart MBA,
he could be just a average guy (hard working one though) with an MBA

~~~
andrewljohnson
I feel bad for kicking the guy while he's down, but it strikes me as so odd
that this is his only option, and I wonder what's going on.

------
prakash
Every recession has stories like these: Here's one from 2001 -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/magazine/commute-to-
nowher...](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/magazine/commute-to-
nowhere.html?pagewanted=all)

------
edw519
This reminds me of a thread here on hn about 6 months ago where the woman
refused to take a job because it paid less than her unemployment.

Same story. Opposite responses. Respect to this guy. Shame on her.

Here's that thread:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=741663>

~~~
crux_
> Shame on her.

Why? Seems rational to me.

~~~
noodle
why? their benefits will run out (or the money will) and they'll be out of a
job despite having had an offer made to them.

or maybe they'll find a better paying job.

point being, its a risk. they can't know for certain if they'll find a job or
not in time. it was a risky decision, not a rational one.

~~~
crux_
First: Acting in your own fiscal self-interest shouldn't be considered
rational? By making this choice, the woman has both more income and more free
time to continue a job search.

Second: Using a system for its intended purpose (income while you remain
unemployed) is gaming said system? How?

Edit: this was a reply to what you had before ("i don't know that
playing/gaming the system and breaking the rules should be considered
rational."), not the current rewrite.

Edit to (snarkily, I admit) reply to your current comment: So you're arguing
that taking a risk is somehow automatically irrational ... on a forum laregly
focused on startups? ;)

~~~
noodle
you make the assumption that this is acting in your own fiscal self-interest,
and i think that isn't necessarily the case. sure, she could make a little
more money now, for another few months, and maybe find another job (or not).
or she could have a job that will pay her a little less money for the long
term. bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and such. unemployment isn't
forever. it runs out, and sometimes it dies when it loses all its money. my
father was on unemployment for one month before his state ran out of money.

its intended purpose is to help you find a job. you've found a job but you
decline it not because it isn't a good job, not because it can't support your
lifestyle, but specifically because the government pays you better to not have
a job. sounds like gaming to me. do you consider mothers on welfare who have
more children specifically to get more income to also not be gaming the system
because the system is set up to help mothers with children?

no, taking a risk is not automatically irrational. for someone with a good
plan and the means, its fine. if you have $1000 to spend, you can gamble with
it and be fine. if you have no money and take out a loan to gamble with,
you're taking a big risk and might get some broken kneecaps. if you're in the
right position, a startup is a great idea. not everyone is in the right
position.

~~~
crux_
First: The purpose of unemployment insurance is to provide some income while
you remain unemployed. That's why it's called "unemployment insurance" and not
"get a job, any job, insurance."

Second: It's a form of insurance. When you have a job, you (via your employer)
pay into an unemployment insurance pool; when unemployed, you draw from it.
It's not government money, it's _your money_ , via a government program. This
is why you get higher UI benefits if you had a higher salary. It's why when
you're self employed and don't pay into the system, you get nothing if your
business folds. Etc.

Third: it sounds like you're the sort who has an issue with any government
assistance period. That's fine, but it doesn't give you the right to expect
others to martyr themselves in the name of your ideals.

Fourth: the oft-repeated mythical welfare queen imagery leaves a very bad
impression of you. Make your argument; don't bring up side issues,
particularly "dog whistle" ones.

~~~
noodle
1) i never said any job. unemployment insurance is to make sure that you have
the opportunity to find another job to maintain your standard of living. if
you're living fine off unemployment payments and you're taking a bit of a pay
cut in a prospective job, you're not taking a standard of living hit, just a
pay cut.

2)form of insurance, yes, but it does not pay out forever. there are limits on
it. if you get fired, you can't sit on unemployment until you die. hence, if
you found a job that helps maintain your standard of living, you're more
rational to take the job than not take it and possibly end up with no income,
hungry children, a forclosure, reposessions, etc..

3)ironically, i'm not. i'm quite pro assistance programs and mildly socialist.
unemployment, welfare, etc. are all great programs if they are assisting the
people who need them. people who don't need them shouldn't be drawing from
them, though.

4) you don't think i made an argument? and if thats the way you feel, thats
fine, you don't have to answer me. i don't appreciate shifting the focus to me
instead of the argument, though. arguing by analogy is limited, but i think my
inquiry is specific enough to fit inside the valid range.

~~~
crux_
Re: (1): Unemployment typically pays less than half what your former job paid;
taking a job that pays even less than that is rather more than "just a pay
cut."

Re: (2): I don't feel a need to second-guess this woman's decision. The only
real purposes in doing so would be to cultivate a sense of superiority or to
make an argument-by-proxy against the existence/current structure of
unemployment insurance. I'm still not sure which of the two you're aiming for.

Re: (4): Your argument was clear. In its subtext, you were calling on me to
feel the same disdain toward this unemployed person as I would towards a poor
black single mother.

