Paycheck To Paycheck workers

[quixotecoyote]

Where's the option for 'living off loans'?

 

[Geek Goddess]

Do you still have my card?

I'm trying to get a long overdue raise out of my boss, and I don't think he takes the threat of me going elsewhere serious. This is partially my own fault for sticking with the company through thick and thin for sixteen years now. So much for being a loyal employee.




Its definitely boom times now. Make it while you can. When I first moved to Houston, 1985, you could buy a rig truck for a song. Some welders were trying their hand at door-to-door sales to keep from losing their houses.

I did see it a couple weeks ago, but have no idea where I put it. If you are serious, PM me or email me with a resume and I'll give it to the construction VP.

 

[shalomsteph]

I was a single parent for many years, in between divorcing and remarrying my husband. (Same guy.)

I was NOT a minimum wage worker by any stretch of the imagination. I actually made a fairly decent income, received child support every month on time, and had medical and dental insurance and a 401K. Still, I lived paycheck to paycheck.

I can give several reasons.

Day care expenses. I made too much to qualify for any type of government assistance, but had two kids in day care. This was a new expense, as I had been a SAHM prior to the divorce. I remember the figures exactly, from 1995. I earned $1550 a month, after taxes, insurance, etc. I received $495 in child support. I lived in a small 2 bedroom apartment in a good neighborhood. Here is how it was broken down: (for those math deficient, I netted $2045/month)

$650-rent
$800-day care

That leaves just under $600 for food, utilities, clothing, diapers, toys, car payment & insurance, etc. Remember, we got NO help at all. If I had not gotten child support, I don't know how we would have survived it at all.

When the kids were no longer in day care, things did get easier, but something always sucks up the money. And I was LUCKY...I was well educated and had lots of stamina. I eventually bought a house, but the day care bill sort of continued, because I put the kids in private school. (Their dad paid half of that, though)

I think single parents have it the roughest. If I knew then what I know now, I would have stayed married, especially since I ended up marrying him again anyway. But there are more and more single parents out there, and less and less help for them. Medical insurance premiums keep rising, and more companies aren't even offering it anymore. Day care expenses are a killer, yet it is neglect to leave kids at home for an hour after school.

Oh, and don't get me started on Payday loans, check cashing places, and all of those wonderful contributions to society.

 

[Darat]

That was nearly my opinion when I started this thread.

I'm a big "By your bootstraps" type person, (no offense, Boo), and have an idea that any of us can make it rich if you apply yourself. We are after all the country that was instrumental in winning WW 2.

Input from some of you I like and respect a lot is changing my mind.

Sadly it appears the "American Dream" really has become just that, a dream : http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pr...ents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm

(PS - We never even had the dream in the UK )

 

[Gregoire]

I think a fairly nice compromise would probably be to lower or perhaps even eliminate the minimum wage but increase earned income tax credit (or replace with something comparable like a negative income tax or whatever) to the point where anyone working full time receives a living income. Having the money come from the government (that is, the economy as a whole) assures that employers aren't forced to either pay workers "more than what their work is worth" or not have workers at all.

After all, if we look at minimum wage laws by saying that "society as a whole" has decided that the working poor deserve a basic income, then it is quite reasonable from a brute economic point of view that it be "society as a whole" that foots the bill. Additionally, this way you don't have to worry about the minimum wage taking jobs away because of businesses being priced out of the labor market. There is, of course, the concern that whatever tax is used to fund this might have a negative effect, but there at least the damage is spread out.

Finally a post I can agree with. I mean no disrespect to the knowledgable skeptics on this forum, but I was beginning to worry that only a few posters on this thread actually knew very much about the "dismal science" aka the Science of Economics.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel here, this issue has been studied by economic scientists for a long time.

It is true that one certainly can find differences of opinion regarding policy among academic economists, however, it is very well established that there will be trade offs you need to consider when you discuss price controls. And yes, the Science of Economics views the minimum wage as a price control.

Clearly, as you point out, the vast majority of economic scientists have concluded such a price control will increase the unemployment of unskilled workers. And clearly for the reasons you state, many economists view the EITC as less detrimental to said unskilled workers.

I would urge anyone to consult an Economics 101 textbook if they doubt this. (I know the media does a terrible job at reporting about the Science of Economics (just as they often misreport about the Science of Evolution), so I would not expect skeptics to believe this just because I said so.)

For what it's worth, the one I most recently consulted about minimum wage laws is by Samuelson who is definitely not a conservative economist by any stretch.


Of course, Economics has been branded the "dismal science" since it is not always comforting to read about trade offs, the "market" or the "Law of Supply and Demand". But then, skeptics are not looking for comfort when they go to science; they are looking for knowledge and understanding.

 

[Gregoire]

I go with Churchill, who said (paraphrasing): any employer who can't pay their employees a decent living wage shouldn't be an employer

When I was in High School, I was making minimum wage after school for a medical supply company. Yes, when the minimum wage went up, I did indeed get a raise. But I don't think I would have has that job if the "Living Wage Law" had been in effect.

 

[JoeEllison]

States have been independently raising the minimum wage, and nothing horrible has happened... so it is a flat-out blatant lie to claim that a national increase will do any damage either.

Sweet Satan, is capitalism really that evil at its core, that billionaires feel like they HAVE to screw over the average worker, to preserve some tiny percentage of their overall profits?

 

[Gregoire]

[......Of course this is anecdotal, but it's my own experience in the past 20 years of trying to find certain job skills that are needed. Unless you are independently wealthy or have some sort of celebrity position (acting, for example), your job is based on a market demand and the number of people who are available and willing to do it for that rate. It is not right that people can't afford the necessities of life. The market tends to level *over time* but that doesn't mean that it works for individuals very well.

Very well said.

 

[Freethinker]

You ought to hear the union workers here squawk when overtime gets scaled back. Many of them are check to check even working 20 hours of OT in a week. Drive two new vehicles and eat out almost every meal and can't figure out why they spend so much. They think I'm not good at managing my money because my truck is 10 years old.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think a fairly nice compromise would probably be to lower or perhaps even eliminate the minimum wage but increase earned income tax credit (or replace with something comparable like a negative income tax or whatever) to the point where anyone working full time receives a living income. Having the money come from the government (that is, the economy as a whole) assures that employers aren't forced to either pay workers "more than what their work is worth" or not have workers at all.

After all, if we look at minimum wage laws by saying that "society as a whole" has decided that the working poor deserve a basic income, then it is quite reasonable from a brute economic point of view that it be "society as a whole" that foots the bill. Additionally, this way you don't have to worry about the minimum wage taking jobs away because of businesses being priced out of the labor market. There is, of course, the concern that whatever tax is used to fund this might have a negative effect, but there at least the damage is spread out.

I don't think this will work. The only taxes your target people are paying are like the social-security tax; exempt from credits. I do my own taxes and I find that I could get refunded all my withholdings with a couple hundred to spare. That was nice, but because I only opted for a minimal withholding in the first place, it didn't help much.

Those extra tax credits didn't help me at all because they only annul eligible taxes that you've already paid and for your population, that is probably non-existent.

 

[balrog666]

You ought to hear the union workers here squawk when overtime gets scaled back. Many of them are check to check even working 20 hours of OT in a week. Drive two new vehicles and eat out almost every meal and can't figure out why they spend so much. They think I'm not good at managing my money because my truck is 10 years old.

 

[plumjam]

When I was in High School, I was making minimum wage after school for a medical supply company. Yes, when the minimum wage went up, I did indeed get a raise. But I don't think I would have has that job if the "Living Wage Law" had been in effect.

why would you think that?
If a minimum 'living wage' law was brought in it would apply to all medical supply companies... in fact ALL companies.. so the playing field would have been kept level for everyone across the board. The net effect is just a slight redistribution of the money from those at the top and middle to those at the bottom (who need it most)

if people can't live decently, out of poverty, in return for working full time at the minimum wage level.. then that level should be raised until they can

 

[balrog666]

why would you think that?
If a minimum 'living wage' law was brought in it would apply to all medical supply companies... in fact ALL companies.. so the playing field would have been kept level for everyone across the board. The net effect is just a slight redistribution of the money from those at the top and middle to those at the bottom (who need it most)

It doesn't work that way - no one's salary is going to be reduced because the minimum wage goes up.

However, low skilled positions would tend to be eliminated or farmed out to lower cost subcontractors. Ooh, they might even hire illegals off the books!

if people can't live decently, out of poverty, in return for working full time at the minimum wage level.. then that level should be raised until they can

Of course, every unskilled 18-year-old deserves a big apartment, a shiny new car, a state-of-the-art hi-def TV, and a satellite dish, don't ya know! And no more domestic beer!

 

[Polaris]

I live paycheque to paycheque because I choose to. I make pretty good money, always have, but I spend all of it. I have no savings and no investments but I have a huge wealth of experiences that most of my better off friends lack.

When I was raising my three kids there were some pretty lean times but we made it through with little or no help from anyone. ($1100.00 a month for daycare tends to cut into the pocketbook) I have never been denied things like loans but I was always charge significantly higher rates because I get paid "flat rate" as opposed to hourly and I wasn't married. (4 percentage points is significant in my view.) Consequently, I buy everything cash. The last loan I had was 12 years ago for a new car. Everyone else was paying 7%, I had to pay 11. That's the last time I borrowed anything.

I always have money simply because my income far outweighs my needs. I suppose, if I ever get married, I will regret the lifestyle I have chosen. People tend to look for security in a mate and I am definitely not that!

That sounds like a good way to get money management across (and make it stick) with the kiddies: "The opposite sex won't like you if you aren't good with money."

 

[jimtron]

Of course, every unskilled 18-year-old deserves a big apartment, a shiny new car, a state-of-the-art hi-def TV, and a satellite dish, don't ya know! And no more domestic beer!

Has anyone here (or anywhere) made such an argument? I certainly don't think 18 year olds need these things.

 

[jsfisher]

Has anyone here (or anywhere) made such an argument? I certainly don't think 18 year olds need these things.

It has been made multiple times, typically in the form of "anyone working full time should earn a living wage". I believe "anyone" would include "18 year olds". Many 18 year olds, still living off their parents' income, would be free to spend their living wage income on whatever they wanted....

 

[jimtron]

Of course, every unskilled 18-year-old deserves a big apartment, a shiny new car, a state-of-the-art hi-def TV, and a satellite dish, don't ya know! And no more domestic beer!

Is the equivalent of:

anyone working full time should earn a living wage

Huh? You really think by "living wage" we mean that 18 year olds should own a bunch of luxury items? That's certainly not what I mean when I say "living wage," and I very highly doubt that's what others who share my views mean. I'm talking about living above the poverty line, and having decent health care. Not state of the art hi-def TVs and brand new cars.

 

[plumjam]

It doesn't work that way - no one's salary is going to be reduced because the minimum wage goes up.

it would.
comparatively speaking the wages of the poor would rise slightly, in relation to the salaries of the middle class and upper class.

However, low skilled positions would tend to be eliminated

some might, but most are not amenable to replacement by machine or robot.
and wonder of wonders those who lost their jobs could walk off happily, in the knowledge that the next job they get will at last pay them decently.
Furthermore in the USA, I understand, some people have to work 2 or 3 jobs to live decently. If the minimum wage was raised to a living wage these people would only have to work 40 hours, and may well go down to only working 1 job. Thus a lot of these surplus 2nd or 3rd jobs would be freed up, to be filled by those seeking work after their job was made unviable.

or farmed out to lower cost subcontractors.

how? the subcontractors would have to pay the living wage too.
if you mean by going overseas... then I doubt it, as overseas wages (latin america, china etc..) are already far far lower than in the USA.

Ooh, they might even hire illegals off the books!

yeah, and the employers could then be arrested and prosecuted. Send some to jail and this would be drastically reduced, I suspect.

Of course, every unskilled 18-year-old deserves a big apartment, a shiny new car, a state-of-the-art hi-def TV, and a satellite dish, don't ya know! And no more domestic beer!

Lol.. this has to be the most blatant example of a straw man I've seen on this forum. In fact, it's so blatant I almost admire you for it.
All I said was to live decently, out of poverty.
Oh yes, and (me being a European) the right to health care, without the worry of bankruptcy.

 

[shalomsteph]

Is the equivalent of:

Huh? You really think by "living wage" we mean that 18 year olds should own a bunch of luxury items? That's certainly not what I mean when I say "living wage," and I very highly doubt that's what others who share my views mean. I'm talking about living above the poverty line, and having decent health care. Not state of the art hi-def TVs and brand new cars.

If my 18 year old were living with me and had a new car and tons of luxuries, I would give the kid the boot.

I am all for having a different wage for people under 18 and people over 18. My high school kid does not need to earn as much per hour as someone out on his own, and is not as available. That should be reflected in wages.

And I live in a metro area, so no one actually is paid minimum wage here...no one would take it. But even $8 or $9 an hour is not livable.

 

[plumjam]

It has been made multiple times, typically in the form of "anyone working full time should earn a living wage". I believe "anyone" would include "18 year olds". Many 18 year olds, still living off their parents' income, would be free to spend their living wage income on whatever they wanted....

It would be entirely up to the 18 year old how he spent his money. (Isn't the USA supposed to be the Land of the Free? )

Are you arguing that if an 18 year old works a full time job his parents should still be held responsible for allowing him to live decently?
In other words, his parents subsidising the 18 year old's employer.