"1: not skilled in a branch of work: lacking technical training

2: not requiring skill

3: marked by lack of skill "

Based on these definitions, are any companies truly employing the "unskilled"? Would a hotel continue to employ a housekeeper who was "marked by a lack of skill", i.e. he or she is unable to properly make beds or vacuum? Would McDonald's continue to employ a worker to take orders and run the cash register who was "not skilled in a branch of work: lacking technical training", i.e. the employee was unable to understand customer orders correctly or to give proper change at the end of the transaction? I believe that one can safely assume that no company would continue to employ anyone who, by defin

ition, was truly "unskilled". Should we not therefore make the conclusion that no companies employ an "unskilled" workforce? Each and every job, regardless of its level of prestige, contains elements of "skill"; to say otherwise is to indicate businesses are filled with bumbling idiots who are unable to complete simple tasks. Now that it has been concluded that there is no true "unskilled" workforce, the question of who deserves a living wage remains. The answer is obvious; every worker deserves a living wage. Why should any person be expected to work for less money than they can support themselves (and/or their family) on?

Barbara Ehrenreich, in her book Nickel and Dimed , stated some startling statistics on just who is really working for less than a living wage, while defining what a living wage is: "The Economic Policy Institute recently reviewed dozens of studies of what constitutes a 'living wage' and came up with an average figure of $30,000 a year for a family of one adult and two children, which amounts to a wage of $14 an hour...The shocking thing is that the majority of American workers, about 60 percent, earn less than $14 an hour." (Pp. 213) If this is truly indicative of who is not making a living wage, then over half the American workforce is living from paycheck to paycheck. Ms. Ehrenreich goes on to say, "It is common, among the nonpoor, to think of poverty as a sustainable condition-austere, perhaps, but they get by somehow, don't they?...These experiences are not part of a sustainable lifestyle...They are, by almost any standard of subsistence, emergency situations. And that is how we should see the poverty of so many low-wage Americans-as a state of emergency." (Pp. 214)

So who should bear the ultimate responsibility for change? I believe all of us need to shoulder the burden. Only through people mobilizing and becoming active members of their own society can changes be made. Corporations are not going to spontaneously offer better wages. Our government is not going to demand those corporations make changes unless "we the people" first become activists in our own destin

Some common words found in the essay are:
Living Wage, Collegiate Dictionary, Barbara Ehrenreich, People's History, Policy Institute, Ms Ehrenreich, Post Intelligencer, Responsible Wealth, Internet Access, living wage, Jobs Justice, deserves living, deserves living wage, continue employ, economic policy institute, economic policy, policy institute, marked lack skill, branch lacking, skilled branch, living wage ordinances, nickel dimed, lacking technical, lacking technical training, paycheck paycheck,
Approximate Word count = 1431
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)