The Budgetary Woes of the USPS

[Darth Wong]

The starting wage for a UAW Janitor is $52,000 dollars a year PLUS ridiculously good benefits. That's insane.
http://www.uaw.org/contracts/03/gm/gm02.cfm

That's pretty close to what starting ENGINEERS get paid. With better benefits. That's pretty disgusting. It's also twice as much money as a janitor working for anyone else gets in Detroit. A twenty million dollar bonus is a drop in the bucket if you have to pay your workers twice as much as average.

Yes, but according to Ekiqa, they can simply raise prices for their cars to pay these salaries! After all, consumers LOVE paying higher prices, and would never switch to a different car company.

[Nephtys]

Wait wait wait... why shouldn't security guards get a decent pay rate? Most of them have to work hard in stressful conditions, especially those who work manufacturing and office building areas.

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

The same reason some jobs get paid less than others anyway. Supply and demand. Shoe Shiners don't require years of training, or years of experience to do a job. A Ph.D Chemist with 10 years of experience isn't going to be nearly as common or replacable, and thus gets more. There's just no way to feasibly give a security guard the same wage as a doctor under all but the most ridiculous circumstances.

[Covenant]

Wait wait wait... why shouldn't security guards get a decent pay rate? Most of them have to work hard in stressful conditions, especially those who work manufacturing and office building areas.

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

The same reason some jobs get paid less than others anyway. Supply and demand. Shoe Shiners don't require years of training, or years of experience to do a job. A Ph.D Chemist with 10 years of experience isn't going to be nearly as common or replacable, and thus gets more. There's just no way to feasibly give a security guard the same wage as a doctor under all but the most ridiculous circumstances.

-edit- By the way, this isn't a response to the USPS section. Unions can be helpful for getting workers rights, but bleeding a company like leeches until it keels over is being a bad parasite and encouraging stagnation. I'm just firing back at Neph's concept of supply-and-demand labor valuation.

You honestly think there's a lot of people lining up to work security and shoe-shine jobs? Having worked security in the past I can tell you that there are often not enough officers for the job, which is part of what leads to such a poor quality in security staffing--you get groups that just drag in anyone they can get and push them out the door to fill contracts, but don't provide a high quality of work. I never worked for one of those, but the low paychecks are why people move from security to police, same reason why people sometimes move from military to security contracting. If they got paid more and less people went from security to police work, the professionalism would increase and the demand for talentless mooks would decrease.

In this sense, by raising pay high enough to retain workers would create that sense of exclusivity that you're using to measure the supply by. Supply and demand is not an accurate metric for valuing talent, especially where these executive-level people are concerned. If you lower the pay of the people at the bottom, those jobs will become unlivable, and you'll either get poorer quality talent or better talent moving upwards or away.

This isn't to say that everyone deserves 50k to start shoving vomit around, but it is naive and distateful to assert that all of these jobs with require low brain-wattage are easy to fill, or undeserving of a decent pay scale, and that all of these hard-to-fill ones are. Just like how you may need to raise salaries on a low-end job to attract and retain people at that level, lowering the top level jobs might help make them more competitive and meritocratic--at least judging by how the top-level people seem to be involved in a game of musical chairs amongst boards, executive positions, and political appointments. Lowering the bar far enough to start pulling people from lower eschelons couldn't possibly hurt business, and it would reduce the absurdly high compensations, and maybe it would even bring a few good ideas in. There's definately no shortage of businessmen.

[Ma Deuce]

At the time they were agreed to, the union deals were NOT excessive. They are excessive now, because so few people are buying vehicles, and as a result, the unions are granting concessions to the automakers.

There was never a time when they weren't excessive, because thanks to those legacy costs GM was starting to lose money making cars 25 years ago, and Ford and Chrysler weren't much better off. That's exactly what drove them to focus so hard on SUVs and trucks, as those were among the last vehicles they could sell at a decent profit margin in spite of those costs.

So contrary to the popular line that the SUV is responsible for all Detroit's problems, those vehicles actually saved them from bankruptcy (at least temporarily), for without them GM would probably have been forced to file by the mid-'90s (although one could argue that would have been a better outcome than what we have today, as during that era GM would stand a much better chance of emerging from Chapter 11 as a viable company). Even during the illusionary "good times" in the '90s and early 2000's, GM was paying roughly 3 dollars to it's retirees for every 2 it paid to it's current workers, but if you want to argue there's nothing wrong with that picture, go right ahead.

[Darth Wong]

Wait wait wait... why shouldn't security guards get a decent pay rate?

Because they're doing a brainless job which requires very little training.

Most of them have to work hard in stressful conditions, especially those who work manufacturing and office building areas.

No they don't. Security guards walk around and make sure nothing is happening. Most industrial security is boring as hell. Booth guards at the nuclear power plants around here bring novels to work.

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

Of course it's elitist. That doesn't make it wrong. I'm so sick of dealing with American dumbshit populist political rhetoric.

[Darth Wong]

You honestly think there's a lot of people lining up to work security and shoe-shine jobs?

If they can't hire people at the current pay rate, they would pay more. But they don't, and yet (surprise!) they still have people working security. Why? Because most ordinary security is a brainless job.

[Edi]

Here in Finland you can get a security guard certification with a 40 hour course. 60 hours for one that is valid longer. Not exactly high requirements. The most stressful sites would be policing big transit hubs like railway stations, subway trains and similar public venues where the general public (and thus also the trash) congregate and drunks and other similar people cause disturbances. And at those sites they do not work alone. Industrial and office building security is mainly terminally boring shit.

The jobs don't pay very highly, but enough to pay the bills. There is not and should not be any entitlement to a humongous paycheck for that kind of work. I do more technically demanding work and I don't get a whole lot of money for it. My work is arguably more stressful, as it consists entirely of giving technical support over the phone to morons who can't find their own ass with a map, a compass and GPS positioning. Why should security guards get more than I do?

A high paying job is not a right. It is something you educate yourself for, then compete for and then you need to do it as well.

[AMT]

Wait wait wait... why shouldn't security guards get a decent pay rate?

Because they're doing a brainless job which requires very little training.

That is a gross simplification. Some security work is like that. A good bit of it isn't, especially in manufacturing positions where the security force is also the first responder squad for medical emergencies, and the fire squad (with their own engines and equipment) who have to handle industrial accidents, and thus have to be certified as EMT's and Firefighters to work these positions. By your definition, those positions are also brainless jobs which require very little training.

Most of them have to work hard in stressful conditions, especially those who work manufacturing and office building areas.

No they don't. Security guards walk around and make sure nothing is happening. Most industrial security is boring as hell. Booth guards at the nuclear power plants around here bring novels to work.

Again, it depends on the position. Booth guards may have it easy, but that's just a small contingent of the actual security force. Again, security forces also have first responders in them and firefighters, among other specialized forces. All of whom get paid at the same rate as the standard guard (or perhaps a dollar or two more an hour, from the experience I've had with security).

ETA: Also, a lot of security work is like Police work, where the major part is drudge work, punctuated by very stressful emergency situations which require very fast decision making skills and calm under life or death situations. Not exactly mindless work with little training.

Unfortunately, because the security contracts are so bare bones, they pay for shit, and you generally get substandard people as security officers, which only excaerbates the mentality that it's "mindless work that requires little training"

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

Of course it's elitist. That doesn't make it wrong. I'm so sick of dealing with American dumbshit populist political rhetoric.

Actually I believe elitism can be good and bad. I just feel that this particular example is the bad type.

[Kodiak]

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

Of course it's elitist. That doesn't make it wrong. I'm so sick of dealing with American dumbshit populist political rhetoric.

Seriously, should I be applauding people who went through a 40-hour certification and have a job which requires a warm body and no skills and clamoring them to get paid a wage higher than my brother who has a 4-year Science degree? Elite means the best part, the top of the class, so how can a system which rewards people who excel be bad? Elite is good!. When we reward people who do minimum, then how is that fair to people who apply themselves. Shoe-shiners and security guards are not lesser persons by any means, but the wage they earn should be commensurate to the skills required. If there's a job that anybody could do, should we pay them a competitive salary or just whatever they think they should get? I had friends who worked as "security guards" and their duties involved letting scientists into buildings they had been locked out of, driving around a parking lot every hour, and if there was a crime in progress they were supposed to....TAKE NOTES and wait for the police. They watched hours of dvds and wore out their PSP's, so no, I don't think it's unfair to say they deserved to get paid $14/hour (twice minimum wage) with no advanced degree or training. All people DESERVE a decent living, but in life you only get what you EARN.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Corrections Corps of America, for example, treats his security personnel like crap. They work with immigration inmates. There is no union for the officers, so they routinely work the officers over 12 hour days (sometimes, it doesn't pay to come home, so the workers sleep there in their cars). It's also often more than 7 day workweeks whenever the administration feels like it (the company will make you work all week and then part of the next week before giving you off a day, and even then, you must carry a cell with you so they can contact you at any time and bring you in on that day too).

A problem with their low pay/crap conditions is that you also get what you pay for. People are hired, but are entirely unreliable, incompetent, which puts stress and all the work on the few people who aren't retarded. They also have a high turn over rate, but since they make a profit, they don't care.

Of course, though, ordinary security shouldn't be making anywhere near a professional, like a doctor or lawyer or engineer. But it should be enough to avoid squalor and to get the job done competently, not incompetently, but still profitably. Several inmate die because the quality of the people hired is so low. Few competent people want to do the job.

[AMT]

Seriously, should I be applauding people who went through a 40-hour certification and have a job which requires a warm body and no skills and clamoring them to get paid a wage higher than my brother who has a 4-year Science degree?

If the actual job they're doing is more useful then the one your brother does? Yes.
Again, despite the stereotypes being thrown around here, a lot of security work is more than just "warm body syndrome".

ETA: Notice however, I never said a security guard (or a janitor) should make 50k a year.
I said they should have competitive wages comensurate with the work they put in.

In other words, 10-15 dollars an hour would be a good start as an example, for my area, where the average full time worker gains 9-16 dollars an hour.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I doubt it would be the case that the security guard with the 40 hour cert is doing more useful work than the 4 year science degree'd individual. But Mr. Wong didn't generalize to all security guards. He just said ordinary security like you see at the mall. Mallcops. Do you think mall cops should get paid high salaries?

[Covenant]

This shouldn't become a war about the pay-scale of a single occupation, especially not security, where there's so much variation. The places I worked actually paid pretty well, because they had higher standards. Because of this they could afford to charge more and thus pay us better while dumping the people who didn't measure up. Obviously, these were not unionized firms.

You honestly think there's a lot of people lining up to work security and shoe-shine jobs?

If they can't hire people at the current pay rate, they would pay more. But they don't, and yet (surprise!) they still have people working security. Why? Because most ordinary security is a brainless job.

That's two different issues. The brainlessness and the amount of people. since lots of different clients have a wide degree of need. One guy will be standing at a door or hanging around as a mall cop, but that's certainly not what I did. You had to be bright and well spoken, posess enough computer knowledge to operate the monitoring system, carry and competantly handle a sidearm, as well as have basic emergency medical training to do things like CPR, operate the Defibrillation decks, be able to deal with minor wounds or hazardous substances. That's way beyond what your average moron of the street can do, and it can be hard to replace that level of certification and experience. Very hard, in fact. But that doesn't translate (nor should it) into a higher salary.

It's probably more accurate to say that because security isn't extremely valuable to most companies, they allocate less funding to such services. Even if you had a team of highly-trained security professionals who were capable of handling things in such a way that they were worth a good salary, most places just need someone to check IDs and open locks. Because of this you have a lot of need without a lot of pay. Your average employer would like the officer on duty to do a lot more than play his gameboy and press a button, but for what they're being paid, the average level of talent can barely be bothered to show up at all.

Being an open market, people still want those contracts, so what they do is just higher lower-quality people. Lots of big companies hire scads of these idiots. Raising the requirements would mean that you can't find enough people, which would mean you would have to raise wages in order to retain the higher-level talent that often leaves to become police or military or whatnot. Many places don't have enough people, and that forces them to lower standards. It simply isn't true to say that the low wages are a result of over-supply in this case.

Anyway, like I had said before, I was just sniping at Neph's assumption that any job that is easy to fill should be worth an unlivable wage, and any job that is hard to fill justifies an absurd amount of pay. That's an idiotic idea, and the idea that their pay is commensurate to skills required is just overly simplistic. If we want to do a complete re-evaluation and set wages to a level where it is meritocratic, the moron-jobs will rightfully end at the bottom of the pile anyway, but we're a long way from any sort of merit-based pay economy, so it's disingenuous to only extend such criticism to certain professions (the top and the bottom).

I mean, check out this list of middle-income jobs, and try to figure out how much elite training it takes to work at these levels, and then go up the list a few times to see what a upper-middle income of 80k is worth. No real shockers in there, and I won't defend the barely-breathing from accusations of worthlessness, but pay can often have very little to do with fairness OR market availability.

[Tiriol]

Here in Finland you can get a security guard certification with a 40 hour course. 60 hours for one that is valid longer. Not exactly high requirements. The most stressful sites would be policing big transit hubs like railway stations, subway trains and similar public venues where the general public (and thus also the trash) congregate and drunks and other similar people cause disturbances. And at those sites they do not work alone. Industrial and office building security is mainly terminally boring shit.

The jobs don't pay very highly, but enough to pay the bills. There is not and should not be any entitlement to a humongous paycheck for that kind of work. I do more technically demanding work and I don't get a whole lot of money for it. My work is arguably more stressful, as it consists entirely of giving technical support over the phone to morons who can't find their own ass with a map, a compass and GPS positioning. Why should security guards get more than I do?

A high paying job is not a right. It is something you educate yourself for, then compete for and then you need to do it as well.

I'm actually quite sure that potentially the most stressful position to be as a security guard would be in a nuclear facility; they are the only ones routinely allowed to carry guns in person. The transit guard duty is apparently immensely frusfrating: sometimes nothing happens at all, sometimes you should split into three different persons to catch five different malcontents.

I'm not arguing that a security guard should get a bigger paycheck than someone who has more training under his belt (although, truth to be told, some of the guards do undergo a long training to become bachelor-level educated in the field of security; bemusingly they don't get one cent more pay for it), far from it. However, I'm of the opinion that in some places the guard's salary isn't adequate (although that is usually the case in many fields): some "target areas" require the security guard to do several tasks far outside his actual job description that it isn't funny. The problem? If the guard in question complains, he will be moved to another location or get an official warning because a customer complained. And there are always more subservient people to replace someone who knows his duties (for example, some restaurants require the guard to clean after restaurant's customers have left; and believe me, there would be a merry hell if the guard would refuse to do so).

However, in the end, a security guard's job isn't a high-paying one simply because it is, for a lack of better word, a labourer's job. It's basically one of the entry-level jobs in the whole service industry. I'd be more than happy to get a pay raise, but I'm also under no illusion about the guard's position in the grand scheme of things. And as Edi already said, wages are enough to pay the bills.

[Stargate Nerd]

Hmm judging by this chart http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layo ... 20Security

Security guards across the US make anywhere from $21k to $36k annually. If I deduct 30% for taxes and other cuts that would leave even the worst paid Security Guard with a weekly pay check of $318.

And most in fact make more than that.

I don't see how that is "bad" pay. Considering many college grads start with similar salaries.

[Covenant]

I think we've probably flayed this one career to death. I would agree that in many cases that's an entirely reasonable salary, it's not good for the amount of hours you put in, but more than fair for the difficulty, so it evens out. But the big difference is that these jobs usually start around 9 bucks, and unlike college grads, these people generally have no more room for income growth when they hit 14 an hour. Now, let's all agree that the pay they're being paid is fair, and just examine what that number means:

Check the median base salary: $29,668. Throw in the shitty hours (can easily be 12 hour days at times, and 2/3rds of them work non-primo schedules) and you're seeing what earning that 14 dollars per hour means: sometimes pulling the 11:30 to 7:30 slot one day then a 9 to 9 one the next. You're being paid hourly though, so this isn't as big of a whine-factor as if you're salaried, but if that's where your income growth ends? Let's look at Vermont for some info. Thanks Vermont!

Here they identify a single-person livable income (rightly or wrongly) as about 24k a year. Base salary plus bonuses, remove the health benefits and other non-usable forms of 'income' from the equation and you end up with about 30k, something that is about 6-7 thousand away from the boundary between livable and unlivable. It would certainly make it hard for one of the earners to quit their job and raise kids if security was your household income, so you can't really afford to stay an officer all that long unless you have no real plans for a family or a life.

So, Stargate Nerd, you may not call that "bad" pay but I'm not sure you understand what that means. I think the current poverty line is set at around 11k, with people saying off-the-cuff that the real level of poverty is about 170 percent of that, making it as high as 18-19k. However, for a single person with no real education who goes right from Highschool to working security? I could see it being fair, and it offers them an opportunity to save up for college and enter the workforce as something slightly more technical. I do think it's a bit silly to say they should be paid less, or that they don't deserve that salary. Should they be kicked back to 10 dollars an hour? There would be a labor-force to pick that up, for sure, but it would be unsafe to put such individuals in control of security systems and firearms.

[Edi]

Many of those problems are specific to the way the US labor market and healthcare system are set up, so they are not applicable to other markets directly, Covenant. Parallels, yes, but not directly equal.

[Covenant]

Many of those problems are specific to the way the US labor market and healthcare system are set up, so they are not applicable to other markets directly, Covenant. Parallels, yes, but not directly equal.

I would agree... but I thought we were talking about the USPS and unions and the idea of brainless jobs in a mostly American context. If I missed a transition to a different topic, I apologize for couching that in specifically American labor market ideas.

[Stargate Nerd]

I think we've probably flayed this one career to death. I would agree that in many cases that's an entirely reasonable salary, it's not good for the amount of hours you put in, but more than fair for the difficulty, so it evens out. But the big difference is that these jobs usually start around 9 bucks, and unlike college grads, these people generally have no more room for income growth when they hit 14 an hour. Now, let's all agree that the pay they're being paid is fair, and just examine what that number means:

Check the median base salary: $29,668. Throw in the shitty hours (can easily be 12 hour days at times, and 2/3rds of them work non-primo schedules) and you're seeing what earning that 14 dollars per hour means: sometimes pulling the 11:30 to 7:30 slot one day then a 9 to 9 one the next. You're being paid hourly though, so this isn't as big of a whine-factor as if you're salaried, but if that's where your income growth ends? Let's look at Vermont for some info. Thanks Vermont!

Here they identify a single-person livable income (rightly or wrongly) as about 24k a year. Base salary plus bonuses, remove the health benefits and other non-usable forms of 'income' from the equation and you end up with about 30k, something that is about 6-7 thousand away from the boundary between livable and unlivable. It would certainly make it hard for one of the earners to quit their job and raise kids if security was your household income, so you can't really afford to stay an officer all that long unless you have no real plans for a family or a life.

So, Stargate Nerd, you may not call that "bad" pay but I'm not sure you understand what that means. I think the current poverty line is set at around 11k, with people saying off-the-cuff that the real level of poverty is about 170 percent of that, making it as high as 18-19k. However, for a single person with no real education who goes right from Highschool to working security? I could see it being fair, and it offers them an opportunity to save up for college and enter the workforce as something slightly more technical. I do think it's a bit silly to say they should be paid less, or that they don't deserve that salary. Should they be kicked back to 10 dollars an hour? There would be a labor-force to pick that up, for sure, but it would be unsafe to put such individuals in control of security systems and firearms.

You make very good points and I certainly agree with you on almost everything. But I don't think they're problems that are restricted to Security Guards. You will run into the same problems you listed whether you're a overnight stocker at Loewe's, a customers service rep, a worker at a manufacturing plant, a city hall employee or cook at a diner. So yeah I agree with you that in some parts of the country a salary of 24k will make life very difficult, especially if you want you raise a family. But again I think that it's a problem with our society in the US, or at least the states with high costs of living, and not something restricted to security guards.

So when I say that a salary of $21k-$36k isn't "bad", I certainly don't have the intention of claiming that they're perfectly livable wages. I'm just saying that they're not bad compared to other jobs. And as far as jobs go you can certainly do worse than a median paycheck ~$432 a week.


A few questions I do have are regarding the pay structure and the the $9 start pay.
First, are security guards salaried or paid by the hour?
If it's the former and they expect you work 12 hour shift then yes that puts a different light on the pay. But if it's the latter you would get paid for the extra four hours which means that your pay is improving.

Second I think that average salaries and wages are based on a 40 hour work week and do not take into account over time. So when that website says $21k-$36k it's actually less than what a security guard really earns if you count the overtime pay.

Also if you have $21k yearly earning your pre tax hourly rate would have to be at least $11. A $9 rate would only amount to roughly $17k a year.

I'd appreciate if you could shed some light on these questions.

[Darth Wong]

I think we've probably flayed this one career to death.

This was all started by AMT's brain-damaged comment:

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

The fact is that they are lowly employees, with very limited and easily replaceable skills, and that's why they don't get paid much. If you're going to argue about what an acceptable low-end salary is, that's an entirely different argument. The original point was simply that yes, they are a lesser employee and should be paid a low-end salary to match.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

The fact is that they are lowly employees, with very limited and easily replaceable skills, and that's why they don't get paid much. If you're going to argue about what an acceptable low-end salary is, that's an entirely different argument. The original point was simply that yes, they are a lesser employee and should be paid a low-end salary to match.

No one "deserves" anything, at least not in most democratic, western societies. Most people are entitles to the basics of life if they work (unless they have extenuating circumstances, such as being crippled). And the luxuries of life are based on a person's ability to "earn" in the "market" (job market, public sector work, etc'), which is greatly influenced by Supply and Demand.

The gist of this, is that supply and demand is the basis of wages, and someone with 7 years of (expensive) education in a specialized subject and the mental ability and drive to pursue that (which the vast majority of people lack) are rare. And specialized. (And in fact, wouldn't bother with 7 years if half a year would do).
As opposed to a few weeks learning how to handle the safety and trigger of a handgun, and being handed a schedule for patrols (if even that), which the vast majority of people can do, without much effort. (And this is ignoring the issue of the value of the work, as a pill to relieve stress would save more lives than a fat man sleeping with a donut at the entrance to a mall).

Or in other words, guards, sweepers, janitors, etc' make much less than someone with a degree or more valued skills, that's life, and it's in everyones best interests that engineers get valued more highly than orange pickers.

[ArmorPierce]

Wait wait wait... why shouldn't security guards get a decent pay rate? Most of them have to work hard in stressful conditions, especially those who work manufacturing and office building areas.

Seems somewhat elitist to say that the shoe shiners and security guards of the world are "lowly" and undeserving of a decent paycheck.

The same reason some jobs get paid less than others anyway. Supply and demand. Shoe Shiners don't require years of training, or years of experience to do a job. A Ph.D Chemist with 10 years of experience isn't going to be nearly as common or replacable, and thus gets more. There's just no way to feasibly give a security guard the same wage as a doctor under all but the most ridiculous circumstances.

Whilst I agree that these jobs shouldn't make top dollar, there are other lowly level white collar jobs such as office clerk that requires about the same skills or less than these seemingly lowly jobs yet they are often paid more. Reason I think is that there is a general disdain against these jobs for some reason and people just see them as lowly and beneath them even though the people doing these jobs are as qualified as someone being an office clerk.

[Terralthra]

Whilst I agree that these jobs shouldn't make top dollar, there are other lowly level white collar jobs such as office clerk that requires about the same skills or less than these seemingly lowly jobs yet they are often paid more. Reason I think is that there is a general disdain against these jobs for some reason and people just see them as lowly and beneath them even though the people doing these jobs are as qualified as someone being an office clerk.

I don't know what you're basing this on. Around here, office clerks get anywhere from $9-$12/hour, while security guards get $11-$18/hour.

[ArmorPierce]

Whilst I agree that these jobs shouldn't make top dollar, there are other lowly level white collar jobs such as office clerk that requires about the same skills or less than these seemingly lowly jobs yet they are often paid more. Reason I think is that there is a general disdain against these jobs for some reason and people just see them as lowly and beneath them even though the people doing these jobs are as qualified as someone being an office clerk.

I don't know what you're basing this on. Around here, office clerks get anywhere from $9-$12/hour, while security guards get $11-$18/hour.

I know several people that started from $14 to $20 per hour between working at state university and NJ Turnpike authority with these jobs going to people that knows someone. These may be special cases since it requires you knowing someone or other special cases. One administrative assistant I know makes close to $80,000. link That would suggest average starting wage is about $14.00 for a full time worker. From personal experience, security work starts at about $10 and hour around here and don't really move up at all.

[Stargate Nerd]

Whilst I agree that these jobs shouldn't make top dollar, there are other lowly level white collar jobs such as office clerk that requires about the same skills or less than these seemingly lowly jobs yet they are often paid more. Reason I think is that there is a general disdain against these jobs for some reason and people just see them as lowly and beneath them even though the people doing these jobs are as qualified as someone being an office clerk.

I don't quite follow you here. If people have a disdain for security guard jobs, then less people would be willing to do them, which in turn would mean that employers would offer higher pay to attract people.