Paycheck To Paycheck workers

[Z]

It would be helpful if some of those advocating the "living wage" minimum wage would clarify what it would cover. I, for one, would not have expected frequent dining at fast-food establishments would be included.

Also, would the minimum very by circumstance? Would a single mother with 3 children qualify for a high minimum than a married couple with no kids? Does the minimum wage in New York City need to be high than in Topeka?

Well, I've tried this one before myself. This is my opinion:

Living wage should cover those basic expenditures needed to survive in a healthy and safe living condition - rent in a reasonable location (no slums), sufficient healthy food to make meals (based on local discount stores), energy costs, water costs, waste costs, transportation (say, the cost of a month's public transportation pass every month), etc. for a single person.

It should NOT cover eating out every meal, or hi-def TV, or cable entertainment, or any 'bling'.

Ideally, it should vary by circumstance, but keeping track of those circumstances might be unbelievably hard. It definitely should be defined at the city level, as cost of living varies so much between cities.

I'd say that child care assistance and such should be differentiated based on current level of pay - that is, if a single mother with one child earns minimum wage, the state pays for child care; if she earns, say, minimum plus half of what child care costs, the state should pick up the other half.

Of course, we could use a similar system for all public assistance - that whatever you make short of living wages, the state makes up in the form of food stamps or rent assistance or whatever - because currently, public assistance is broken, very very badly.

It's important, I think, to remember that not all minimum wage earners are teenagers living at home with mom and pop. An awful lot of them are middle-aged former-housewives, or ex-military with non-translatable skills, or people too poor to pursue higher education. They're single moms and married with kids and everything in between.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'd say that child care assistance and such should be differentiated based on current level of pay - that is, if a single mother with one child earns minimum wage, the state pays for child care; if she earns, say, minimum plus half of what child care costs, the state should pick up the other half.

Of course, we could use a similar system for all public assistance - that whatever you make short of living wages, the state makes up in the form of food stamps or rent assistance or whatever - because currently, public assistance is broken, very very badly.

So explain to me the motivation to work for an upgrade in pay that is still short of the living wage?

I agree with the concept in general, but your particular conceptualization seems to be flawed.

 

[earloke]

I have 2 years of college and in 1998 was making 60000 a year and in the union ,Became disabled. Now I see the people doing the same kind of work making $ 14.00 PER HOUR and the unions have colapsed . Im starving to death on social security disability. One medication I take cost $18.00 a day. Check to check ,yes and I own my own home and my own cars .

 

[Z]

So explain to me the motivation to work for an upgrade in pay that is still short of the living wage?

I agree with the concept in general, but your particular conceptualization seems to be flawed.

The motivation isn't to work for an upgrade in pay that is still short of the living wage; the motivation is to work for an upgrade in pay that moves past the base living wage.

But as I said, that was hypothetical... the actual proposition was regarding child care costs versus the living wage - that the state would cover the additional costs beyond what you earned (and in my proposal, you'd be earning at least living wage).

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'd say that child care assistance and such should be differentiated based on current level of pay - that is, if a single mother with one child earns minimum wage, the state pays for child care; if she earns, say, minimum plus half of what child care costs, the state should pick up the other half.

For example if she works 30 hours, she makes the "living wage" and the state pays all of her childcare. If she works 40 hours, she makes the "living wage" + 50% of her childcare costs which she now has to pay.

Post childcare, her income is identical whether she works 30 hours or 40. In effect a 100% marginal tax rate - why would she bother to work additional hours for absolutely no income?

 

[balrog666]

Living wage should cover those basic expenditures needed to survive in a healthy and safe living condition - rent in a reasonable location (no slums), sufficient healthy food to make meals (based on local discount stores), energy costs, water costs, waste costs, transportation (say, the cost of a month's public transportation pass every month), etc. for a single person.

You left out health insurance, which is the most prominent reason that activists advocate for a "living wage".

And I think that sounds like all of that will buy one hell of a shiny car (or even bling) for an 18-year-old with no skills and no real expenses. And then he will need more for car insurance too. Oh, and add more for a retirement fund just for giggles. Oh, and assume he lives in San Francisco or Manhattan or will move there and live 25-to-a-house like the illegals - even better pay now!

Wheeeee, it's party time - let all the kids with no future ride that subsidized pony!

 

[JoeEllison]

For example if she works 30 hours, she makes the "living wage" and the state pays all of her childcare. If she works 40 hours, she makes the "living wage" + 50% of her childcare costs which she now has to pay.

Post childcare, her income is identical whether she works 30 hours or 40. In effect a 100% marginal tax rate - why would she bother to work additional hours for absolutely no income?

No more overtime? You say that like it is a bad thing.

Certainly, I have to say that anything that makes employees more like human beings, and less like cattle for their employers to exploit, is a good thing... and, I think that's what the objections from the predatory "capitalists" really boil down to. They want and need employees to be virtual slave labor. That's the logical conclusion to the "unregulated free market" philosophy.

 

[Segnosaur]

No more overtime? You say that like it is a bad thing.

Ummm... wait a second...

First of all, it looks like the person was not suggesting the worker have to work overtime. They were comparing a situation where they worked 30 hours vs. 40 hours/week, neither of which should be considered 'overtime'.

Secondly... who exactly says overtime is always a bad thing? If I had the choice, I'd gladly work a few extra hours, with the idea of saving it and having the ability to retire early.

 

[Z]

You left out health insurance, which is the most prominent reason that activists advocate for a "living wage".

And I think that sounds like all of that will buy one hell of a shiny car (or even bling) for an 18-year-old with no skills and no real expenses. And then he will need more for car insurance too. Oh, and add more for a retirement fund just for giggles. Oh, and assume he lives in San Francisco or Manhattan or will move there and live 25-to-a-house like the illegals - even better pay now!

Wheeeee, it's party time - let all the kids with no future ride that subsidized pony!

It's better than starving single adults near to death. I'd much rather a few kids whose parents are too lazy to make them leave the nest get some bling, than a single adult who can't afford college have to take two or even three jobs just to be able to afford a slum apartment, ramen for his or her one meal per day, NO health insurance of any kind, and too damned bad that he ends up dying of malnutrition and pneumonia, oh well.

If some 18-year-old is 'riding a subsidized pony' the problem isn't with the wage itself, but with the parents or landlords letting it come to that. And if they're stupid enough to let that happen, why shouldn't the kids benefit?

What do you have against 18 year olds, anyway? Did you skip and go straight to 40?

 

[JoeEllison]

I like the way people get angry about everyone making a decent living, while they have no problem with executives making tens of millions a year for doing nothing much.

Why is it a good idea for anyone to suffer.

 

[Z]

For example if she works 30 hours, she makes the "living wage" and the state pays all of her childcare. If she works 40 hours, she makes the "living wage" + 50% of her childcare costs which she now has to pay.

Post childcare, her income is identical whether she works 30 hours or 40. In effect a 100% marginal tax rate - why would she bother to work additional hours for absolutely no income?

That's her choice, in that case. I see no problem with it.

But what if by working 40 instead of 30 hours, she makes living wage, all childcare cost expense, plus 10% again. She's profitted. And eventually, if raises are steady (and employees who aren't absolutely incompetent SHOULD get raises, the longer they work), she can't help but profit.

Besides all that, why SHOULD she have to work 40 hrs instead of 30 hrs?

Just an aside, I'm trying to figure out if my memory is just that poor, or if working hours have changed a LOT since I was a kid. I seem to recall part-time work being 25 hrs per week, and full time being 40 hrs per week; and people didn't work LESS than those numbers, because that was being lax. But now it seems like the idea is, no MORE than 25/40 hrs per week - instead of no LESS than. Was it always like this? I admit that my memory isn't at ALL what it should be...

Of course, when I was a kid, the people my dad worked for expected you there for 40 hrs per week regardless of other issues. If you couldn't manage that - you could find another job.

Things must have changed, all things considered.

 

[balrog666]

It's better than starving single adults near to death. I'd much rather a few kids whose parents are too lazy to make them leave the nest get some bling, than a single adult who can't afford college have to take two or even three jobs just to be able to afford a slum apartment, ramen for his or her one meal per day, NO health insurance of any kind, and too damned bad that he ends up dying of malnutrition and pneumonia, oh well.

If some 18-year-old is 'riding a subsidized pony' the problem isn't with the wage itself, but with the parents or landlords letting it come to that. And if they're stupid enough to let that happen, why shouldn't the kids benefit?

What do you have against 18 year olds, anyway? Did you skip and go straight to 40?

There are food stamps, free food banks, and many charities here - the only one starving is someone who has chosen to do so. Look at the typical "poor" in the USA; they are the fattest poor people on Earth and there is no shortage of clothes, cars, housing, or bad taste there.

If someone is unable (or unwilling) to manage their money, shoveling more money their way isn't going to solve their problems. And politically mandating that they pay their utility bill, pay off their car loan, buy car insurance, or buy health insurance won't work either. Even paying those bills for them doesn't work and I really don't know why anyone would think it would.

More than 50% of all minimum wage workers, to the extent that there even are any of those any more, are unskilled, young people, brand new to the work force. Very few of them remain at the pay scale for more than a year or two because they get experience, learn a few skills (like showing up), or decide they don't want to wash dishes, or chase grocery carts around a parking lot in the rain, for the rest of their lives.

 

[Geek Goddess]

I like the way people get angry about everyone making a decent living, while they have no problem with executives making tens of millions a year for doing nothing much.
Why is it a good idea for anyone to suffer.

Can you point me to one of those jobs?

 

[Esperdome]

Ummm... wait a second...

First of all, it looks like the person was not suggesting the worker have to work overtime. They were comparing a situation where they worked 30 hours vs. 40 hours/week, neither of which should be considered 'overtime'.

Secondly... who exactly says overtime is always a bad thing? If I had the choice, I'd gladly work a few extra hours, with the idea of saving it and having the ability to retire early.

That's my view of it too. Every day I work overtime brings me three days closer to retirement. But the closer I get, the less it will help. (expected return on investments over time)

If I could get a high enough paying hourly job working 7-12's, I might ride that pig until I never had to work again.

 

[JoeEllison]

Can you point me to one of those jobs?

Imagine my finger, pointed at the upper floors of any skyscraper... right over THERE!

 

[quixotecoyote]

Imagine my finger, pointed at the upper floors of any skyscraper... right over THERE!

But joe! Those execs spend their days gathering information and making decisions!

 

[JoeEllison]

But joe! Those execs spend their days gathering information and making decisions!

Planning where to eat a $100 lunch, figuring out if one can settle for a gold-plated bathtub, and buying a villa in Spain for a three week vacation in Madrid, and then laying off 500 employees to pay for it, doesn't count as "gathering information and making decisions"

 

[quixotecoyote]

Planning where to eat a $100 lunch, figuring out if one can settle for a gold-plated bathtub, and buying a villa in Spain for a three week vacation in Madrid, and then laying off 500 employees to pay for it, doesn't count as "gathering information and making decisions"

But joe! If the execs were paid less, then the company wouldn't be able to recruit from the ever shrinking pool of people willing to run a company! Those perks ensure filled positions.

 

[balrog666]

Planning where to eat a $100 lunch, figuring out if one can settle for a gold-plated bathtub, and buying a villa in Spain for a three week vacation in Madrid, and then laying off 500 employees to pay for it, doesn't count as "gathering information and making decisions"

Well that explains why you aren't one of those "gathering information and making decisions!

 

[JoeEllison]

But joe! If the execs were paid less, then the company wouldn't be able to recruit from the ever shrinking pool of people willing to run a company! Those perks ensure filled positions.

I know... I mean, who would even show up for 10-50 times the median income?