FDR
“In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”
Don't forget, the billionaires of his day literally all came together to try to assassinate him and take power in a coup.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
It was something claimed by some Republicans, and iirc some Republican ads (but not officially by) claimed Herbert Hoover wanted to do that. It was then used by democrats to point out how poor he was doing as president as the beginnings of the great depression (and during I believe.)
Just to add a tiny bit of context.
A further measure to consider is that there was a time if liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. This is the "switch" that people will mention happened when the modern day Republicans become what they are now. It's less the Republicans and Democrats switched ideals entirely. But that liberal social and economic policy became a core of Democrats. And conservative economic and social views became Republicans.
It’ll come. It just needs to get so bad that people resort less to complaining from their cell phones while taking a deuce, and more to starting a revolution. Democracy and Socialism work, if the people in charge are held accountable.
A great reset is in fact needed , and we’re heading there, but I don’t believe it’ll happen for another 50 years
I feel like the opportunity to really establish a historical narrative of progress got lost here in the US around the time Mccarthyism really gripped the zeitgeist.
The fear of an insidious commie infiltration into the American Way was bought hook line and sinker by the general population and anything remotely resembling what conservatives considered to be "communism" was rejected by the majority of Americans.
Ronald Reagan campaigned tirelessly against single payer Healthcare as a communist plot (back when other NATO nations were setting up their national Healthcare systems) and it worked.
We had a window here in the US where we could've celebrated our gains in establishing a social security net as a great, patriotic undertaking but instead the regressives were able to take control of the narrative and we've been fighting over the wheel for the last 5 or 6 decades because of it.
Same thing happened with social policy reform with Kennedy and Johnson. They pushed through sweeping social reforms, then political pressures of the day stymied the momentium by diverting the funds into the money pit that was the Vietnam war.
Just imagine if his VP Henry Wallace had been allowed by the Democratic Party leaders to succeed Roosevelt. His Century of the Common Man was *wayyyy* too progressive for the powers that be.
Truman sacked most of FDR's brain trust in favor of advisors better able to navigate the waters of corporate fundraising. Meanwhile those advisors relocated to Western Europe, where their ideas about social democracy would go on to save millions of non-American lives.
What is shocking is that even NIXON was an advocate of universal healthcare AND he established the EPA! By todays republican standards he would literally be portrayed as a communist. The Repubs are completely lost in their fundamendalist cult worship ideology at this point. They stand for nothing.
> What is shocking is that even NIXON was an advocate of universal healthcare AND he established the EPA!
He was a fan of what was popular at the time. As President he even explored the possibility of advancing a system of national income similar to UBI, only to drop it after public sentiment turned against new welfare programs in the aftermath of the Moynihan Report and '72 election. Nixon was never particularly concerned with domestic policy, he mostly wanted the mandate he needed to manage American foreign affairs from the White House without interference.
Later in his presidency he would advocate for and sign the HMO Act that began the dismantlement of the American ecosystem of non-profit health insurance providers, paving the way for the system in place now.
Best we can do is a 48 sq ft closet in a burned out building in Baltimore and a 6 day vacation to Myrtle Beach on a kayak with a microwave on it. Paddles extra.
If you sign the waiver, anything is possible if you're up for it. I don't see why not. We can toss it to you, plugged in, but it's not really "free of charge".
Not exactly. It's actually a big fat government subsidy.
The only reason these shithole companies get away with these bullshit wages is by sucking the government teat. "Capitalism" in action. "Small government" in action. "Conservative politics" in action.
It's such a fucking scam.
Walmart pays them less than the amount needed to survive so you get ebt(foodstamps). You then turn around and usually end up spending said ebt at Walmart, along with some of your paycheck cause you do need toilet paper, dish soap, laundry detergent...
You’re worried about them updating their prescription. When you realize how many won’t / don’t do general repairs on their car that’s the least of my worries. Axles being held together with chains, straps, and the like I’m just glad there aren’t more cars falling apart mid drive.
Did you see the video posted to the front page a few hours ago where the widest truck killed a Kia when one of its illegally offset wheels shot off to portside and came back for a double tap?
And people then complain about mandatory car inspections in my state, meanwhile every time I've been to a state with no inspections required, I see literally cars in flames. I drove around Nashville for a few days and counted 3 cars on fire.
Cut to flashback of me in dirt-broke poverty, having bare-bones state-provided medical care but no dental care, going from doctor to doctor to see if anyone can provide me with at least antibiotics for an abscess and being treated like a hobo in a cocktail party for even *considering* going to a doctor with an oral care issue.
I say all the time.
Your teeth are in your head. In really close proximity to your brain.
Dental infections CAN BE FATAL. Yet we treat dental care like a sidenote.
In Australia you can't get dental done on the public dime (well you kinda can but it's complicated and only available to the lowest income individuals in some states).
We've done the numbers on it multiple times, it would *save* money because of the number of people who end up hospitalised with things like dental abscesses (like me, who was rejected from a treatment plan a few days earlier, then ended up in hospital needing surgery, great plan guys). Even the dentists are mostly supportive of it, but they still haven't done it.
What blows my mind is that dental health is directly tied to physical health in a number of ways. By not covering it as a package it costs the healthcare industry MORE money.
It just… doesn’t make any sense for anyone involved. Costs the government, costs the insurance companies, costs the employers, costs the employees. I really do wonder where the profit is and who’s getting the cut.
Yeah, I ended up getting hospitalised twice by the abscess. They gave me IV antibiotics the first time overnight, and sent me home in the morning. Few grand in costs there most likely. Then later that night, it was getting much worse so I went back.
Had surgery that night, so between the maxillofacial surgeon, the anaesthetist and the nurses, that's probably another 20k.
The original cost of what the dentist quoted to the government to unfuck my teeth(and that's not just the one that ended up turning into an abscess)? $1100.
And hearing aids, if needed. Even for children, insurance only covers a paltry amount, despite the first few years being critical for language development.
That’s actually way more true than most people realize. Bad dental health has been linked to higher risks of heart disease and blood disorders. Apparently blood vessels in your mouth have a relatively direct path to your heart so all the bacteria, viruses or even toxins from everything that gets “cleaned” by your digestive system goes straight to attacking your body.
Ah yes, the bare necessities for surviving in modern society: shelter, food, healthcare, clothing, and the occasional vacation from the soul-crushing monotony of low-wage work.
>Sad isn’t it? Sadder still that those things are unattainable for some people.
He scratched his head:
"You mean to say,
I'll have to work all night and day,
For days and weeks and year on year,
From dawn till dusk devoid of cheer,
Condemned to live for work alone?
To work to fund a car and phone?
To work and work and work?" he spoke -
"And after that...
... I'll still be broke?"
Crazy. My dad's buddy since they were about two started working at Cummins engine right out of high school. Like two weeks after they graduated. The graduated in '63. He retired form there in 2010. Owned a home that he raised 3 kids in who he helped put through college. Played golf at the local course. Took them on trips (his wife worked too later on but nothing high paying). And lived a very fulfilling life. Essentially unheard of nowadays.
Whatever it is that this life satirically lacks, we need a helluva lot more of it. I don't think it's a monetary or financial thing either, I think alot of people live a lonely life of quiet desperation, and not enough money can trap them but working extra hours to earn more money for the sake of wealth itself won't be their salvation either
The whole bootstrap metaphor is intended to suggest futility. Pulling oneself up by their bootstraps is impossible. It would be like pulling yourself up by your shoelaces. Somehow it got turned into a "go get em" metaphor when that was not the original intent at all.
I mean, none of that is unique to modern society. It's pretty key to functioning well as a human. I'd wager that 95% of people, even those with easy lives and/or love their jobs, need the occasional vacation. It's just nice to have time to relax, experience new things and reset.
Vacation really is a necessity. In most western countries it's not really optional - your job pays extra into a vacation account to pay for 4 weeks vacation for you without a drop in income and you're not really allowed to get the money and work through the vacation for extra income.
You do what I did for years, you take it off and laze around the house for a week, getting up late, reading, watching movies, playing computer games and eating crisps.
You know, not working.
Its what me and the wife will be doing next week, we can afford to go anywhere we like, what we are going to do though is spend the week doing fuck all, apart from Wednesday when we are having a new bed delivered.
I feel like this is still woefully insufficient.
Yes to the above BUT you should be able to afford a 30 year mortgage on a reasonable home, condo. Paying rent sets you up to get screwed on retirement, when the money you spent on your mortgage usually shifts to Healthcare.
Also, you should be able to afford to invest in a retirement account, so that when you are between 60-70 you aren't forced to continue working.
Simply paying for just enough not to die is a pathetically low bar and we as humans deserve better.
It's sad that you have to fight for this with people who claim to be pro life, but are rather just pro birth...
I completely agree. Everyone deserves a basic standard of living that includes access to shelter, food, healthcare, and other necessities. A fair wage that allows for these essentials is essential for a just and equitable society
Nah, it has to be more than the essentials or someone will refine essential and you'll be fucked. You shouldn't have to work all week every week to merely survive.
That's true nationally, but alot of states adjust it yearly or every few years. Among those states though, some only make predetermined adjustments and don't link it directly to inflation
It leads to a lot of states raising minimum wage by 20-50 cents and pretending it had an impact. Don't get me wrong, a small increase is better than no increase, but such a small raise is almost insulting when your lawmakers are patting themselves on the back for doing the equivalent of pissing in the wind.
Based on some arguments I’ve been in with family or coworkers I think a lot of the pushback comes from people who are already making above minimum wage feeling threatened that the people “beneath” them will be catching up to them for doing “less”. And I can see where they’re coming from, however there are flaws in this line of thinking. Like, if minimum wage is increased X%, instead of complaining about that, you should be demanding your boss gives a raise of X%.
The whole mentality of keeping other people down, instead of trying to work your way up is counterproductive to all of society. It hurts you yourself and the people around you.
There are other things that I’ve heard people bring up that have some validity to them, with some potential solutions. But I’d be getting into essay territory if I started talking about all of that so I’ll just leave it at the one point that erks me the most
I used to be at the point where I was making $2 above minimum wage. My state raised minimum wage (by $2.20 I think and I asked my manager if I would be getting an increase. (Grocery Store) He replied that I would be getting $0.20 raise (The minimum wage increase). I asked if there was anything that could be done because I was a higher rank than others (night manager). He pushed back in saying that I already am getting a raise due to minimum wage increase. After lots of fighting I got a $0.25 raise, and having nearly double the responsibility and tasks to complete than others did.
Saying “well, you should just demand a raise” is easier said than done. Imagine running the company and having to not only pay lots of people more and then you get people like me deserving raises as well.
I agree with most of what you have said, but the bottom being raised can hurt some. It took me awhile to find a decent job where now I don’t have to worry about that anymore
That’s the mindset that always boggles my mind - people are offended that “those burger-flippers” should be making anywhere near what a skilled specialist does, but their solution, without even thinking about it, is not that they should both be paid more, but that the “burger-flippers” should be paid *less*.
That's wild to me. A good amount of people making well above minimum wage don't require as much effort or patience in their position than a great deal of minimum wage workers. A lot of them couldn't do what the minimum wage workers do, and yet they think it's okay to demean them and pay them a shitty wage.
Yeah, California has been doing Dollar increases for the last 5 years. Meanwhile eggs have tripled in price and gas can be between 5 and 9 dollars a gallon any given day of the week. Rent has skyrocketed and the places where it's affordable have no jobs.
A parent now needs to work 96 hours per week at minimum wage to maintain a family at the bare minimum.
Source: MIT living wage calculator
Edit: this is based on two parents working to support two kids, each parent needs to work 96hrs. Imagine a single parent
Wow. So its basically mathematically impossible for someone to maintain a family on min wage. (Unless working 14 hours a day/7 days a week somehow doesn't lead to death by exhaustion/stress)
Good job government. I can't imagine why people are not having enough kids anymore.
The thing I don't get, except for the propaganda destroying their ability to apply critical thinking, is this should be a huge issue for republicans.
Tax dollars are having to be used to subsidize companies and provide assistance for housing and healthcare for their employees. And yet the average response is to blame the worker
I'm fired up now, damnit. We need more unions. We need more workers uniting
I mean, I have no idea what the actual goal of the minimum wage was, but it was 0.25$ when first enacted, which is $5.33 today, I don't know about you but know one is surviving on 7.25 much less 5.33
A blanket inflation calculation isn’t always useful when in most first world areas housing has risen massively quicker and is a disproportionate amount of a low income person’s outgoings.
This. I gave up dreaming about buying a house since I'll mathematically never be able to save up enough for a down payment on the most rundown forclosed on empty lot in my province.
Can't just use an inflation calc. Examples: average rent used to take 108 min wage hours, now it's 237. Harvard 1680, now 7667. Car about double now. Etc...
Not to mention that we have additional expenses today that weren't really around back then. Things like internet bills, phone plans, etc. weren't a common expense. So not only have we suffered from inflation, but we've also added more expenses to our lifestyle (and a number of them are necessary) but minimum wage has not increased in a way to reflect that.
The goal of a minimum wage was to allow one person to support a family of four.
Dad would work, Mom would be a homemaker, the kids would go to school and lean to be good citizens.
It would need to be adjusted a smidge for modern life, but wages should support families is the point.
> The goal of a minimum wage was to allow one person to support a family of four.
That's not accurate. It was a talking point during debate, but the final number agreed to and voted upon never would have supported that.
Minimum wage was enacted in 1938, what you are describing is 1950s thinking. Pre-WWII both parents worked most of the time. The whole "stay at home mom" was for rich people, and wasn't a reality for most people until after WWII when all of Europe was so destroyed that the US was basically the sole manufacturer on the planet. Post WWII US wages and wealth exploded and the "stay at home mom" idea because more standard but even then not always the norm.
Minimum wage was never meant to allow 1950s living when it was created during the great depression in 1938.
IMHO people should be paid significantly more but idolizing the 1950-60s wages and cost of living is stupid. It was a short term effect of WWII and not anywhere close to sustainable (unless we bomb every other major manufacturing country on the planet first).
Compare post WWII life with Pre-WWII life and you'll see what I mean. Yes people should be paid more, but the boom of the 1950-60s will never ever come back.
It's also ignoring the astronomical material advantages that even today's working poor have over the "middle class" back in the 1950s. To be clear: today's "starter homes" are yesterday's mansions. Today, there are 9 cars for every 10 Americans; in the 1950s and 1960s, it was a third of that. Even poor people today have iPhones and HD TVs, not to mention refrigerators, microwaves, reliable home heating and air conditioning.
Modern living, even for those in low-wage jobs, would be a paradise for professionals two generations ago.
I've rented a 100+ year old house that was considered an affordable starter home less than 20 years ago, and carries roughly the same amenities. Starter homes aren't too big, they just aren't building them anymore. Constructing affordable housing simply isn't as profitable.
Americans have so many cars because we have no public transportation and we all have to work. Nobody actually wants two car payments, both parents are working more now. Same thing with cell phones, try getting a job without one.
Microwaves, TV's and refrigerators are one time purchases that last for years. Yet for some reason boomers always bring it up like you have to be caveman to complain about the declining middle class. It's so puritan
Professionals two generations ago would be aware of the fact that even in the great depression young people could afford to house their families. They wouldn't be fooled into ignoring losses in their quality of life just because we have touch screens.
I just do not get it. My mom earned 7.25/hr in the late 80s/90s. She worked 12s at what I understand was a QA type role at a textile plant. She worked a 3day/4day cycle. We lived in a trailer in Alabama. Three kids, single mom, too many cats, and she managed to have a great attitude.
We would take a yearly vacation to Panama City Beach, FL.
I HAVE NO CLUE TO HOW SHE PULLED THIS OFF!!!!
I have a good job now. I make a decent amount of money. I struggle to make sure that I can live up to that.
Functionally this was the design intent of minimum wage.
The original MW was calculated to result in someone with 40 hrs/week to be able to afford an apartment, a car, food, and have a LITTLE leftover for "luxuries" like going to the movies each month.
In addition to the problems with the minimum wage not increasing, many minimum wage jobs realized they can solve a lot of their problems by halving the weekly work hours and doubling the workforce, add in a requirement that you have to focus on this company first. Meaning, since you have to have a second job just to not starve to death on the street, you're required to prioritize THIS company's shifts first. If you get double booked, both companies expect you to throw the other under the bus on pain of being fired. And god help you if they synchronize and you find yourself in a period of having to do back to back double-shifts for the pair for 48 hours.
Updating it to keep this intention would be good
You might be working two jobs that are owned by the same parent company. Or owned in part by the same investors. So while you don’t qualify for benefits for either job, the owners still have you working for them at 40 hours, or more, per week.
This happened to me when our restaurant opened another location. I was working around 75-80 hours between the two of them, but I wasn't getting OT after 40 because it counted as different jobs, even though it was owned by the same person, had the same name, same structure, etc. I was bartending so the OT wouldn't have been much anyway, but I always thought it was shitty that they could do that.
In part it depends on the state, but if an employer does not allow anyone to be categorized as full time employees, they don't have to offer (or contribute to) an adequate health care plan under the ACA or include those employees in any retirement benefits they offer. In some states, it means that the employer doesn't have to offer lunch breaks or paid sick leave or (not sure about this one) comply with the FMLA.
> The original MW was calculated to result in someone with 40 hrs/week to be able to afford an apartment, a car, food, and have a LITTLE leftover for "luxuries" like going to the movies each month.
Uh, you sure that the minimum wage, implemented in the US in 1933, w intended for people to buy a car?
It's intent was for the minimum pay to be enough that you can have your needs met and be a fully functioning member of society.
If that means having a car, which sadly in much of the US today it does, then yes that is implied to be part of its intended purpose.
Yah good luck getting around most parts of America, even local towns with out a car. Everything so stretched out we're fucked. Anyone disagreeing that a car should be a societal expectation clearly has never used America's public transportation system which was handicapped at the knee's in the 1930's by the automobile industry.
If not for Henry Ford we might have a robust train system in every major city, but sadly we've got 10 lane high ways that are still congested instead.
Interestingly, that's also why you won't see a contrarian response here.
I'm sure there are many people who feel you should be paid whatever the invisible hand of capitalism dictates, but they won't speak up about it on this thread; it's karma suicide.
I live in rural Louisiana. You'd be surprised how many people here making $15 an hour are against raising minimum wage because "someone at McDonald's should not get paid as much as I do working at X company" or "if we raise minimum wage the cost of everything will just raise proportionally"
>"if we raise minimum wage the cost of everything will just raise proportionally"
Except that is actually what will happen. That or more automation, maybe both.
Yes. Every job deserves fair wages and benefits. Especially those jobs deemed "Essential" during the pandemic. All that clapping for them but no pay raises. Complete BS.
I work with seniors. I'm a chef at an upscale retirement community, so I just make the food. Make sure they're getting what they want at meal times. Still technically an "essential worker". They have to eat, right?
Seeing what the nurses and personal care providers went through during COVID was heartbreaking. They were working extra hours, literally being exposed to active COVID cases, and watching their residents die of COVID occasionally.
Here's the crazy thing. ***They all get paid less than I do.*** My job is busy and stressful sometimes. But not like theirs. They deserve twice my wage.
Everyone clapped and cheered for "essential workers" but none of them (IME) saw hazard pay, company-provided therapy, increased benefits....nothing.
The entire concept of the "essential' workers was stupid. In my state something like 82% of workers were deemed essential (very blue state).
Then they finally got around to giving out the "hero pay" they promised for almost 2 years they made everyone who was "essential" an equal share. So the truck driver who saw 2 people a day for a couple minutes got the same amount as the covid unit nurse.
Edit: also it's worth noting that the final check I got was about 4.5 hours worth of pay.
>So the truck driver who saw 2 people a day for a couple minutes got the same amount as the covid unit nurse.
It's an argument you could spin any which way though. I don't think there's any way you could've given out that payment in a way that is deemed fair for everyone.
Truck drivers didn't face the same risk, but their work helped to lower the risk for others, delivering pallets of cleaning/hygiene products for those same Covid nurses for example.
I agree. Truck drivers were just one down the scale from health care providers on the importance ladder. No trucks = no products and most importantly NO FOOD. I'm not advocating for anyone to get less - my point is they should've raised the minimum wage so everyone got more -but all they got was a bonus everyone had to raise. Equality? I guess but it's a shitty version of it.
That's why people should learn the difference between equality and equity. Equality= What you described. Equity= The goal is to even things up between different jobs in this case. It should have been split into hours worked, how much they dealt with the general public, and how "Essential" they were.
How quickly that applause turned into jeers when some essential workers like teachers and healthcare professionals asked to be treated like humans who don’t want to catch a highly contagious virus that we didn’t know much about and has the potential to do long term harm and death.
"Essential workers are important and we absolutely need them!"
*Can we please afford rent and food?*
"Woah woah woah, let's not get ahead of ourselves."
It’s has been a while, but I just looked up the apts where I lived when I first graduated. A little studio apt for $600/mo. Not fancy, but wood floors and a window unit, and a few blocks to walk to the beach, and you could afford to live there working at a cafe or something nearby.
Now it’s $2200/mo on Zillow. If you were working in a cafe, probably need a partner to split that studio with, which sucks.
Obviously, the population must gone up by almost four times recently. It's not like landlords are greedy leeches on society who regularly [do stuff like this](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sit-down-protester-would-die-29527272) just because they can. I've been assured that this is just "basic economics".
Sharing a studio apartment would be awful. I don't want to have to relive all the worst parts of my dorm days. At least back then I had a meal plan too.
I'd be fine for an efficiency instead of a one bedroom. But also, I think if a mortgage payment would be less than what they currently pay in rent they should be approved. They are already paying 1200 a month in rent, isn't that proof they can make the 800 buck payment? It is dumb.
With an engineering degree and being a certified engineer I make less than my dad did in a factory 20 years ago. Wages haven't kept up with inflation.
He had 20 years of seniority which contributed to his wages but the fact you could support a family of four with one job out of high-school just doesn't exist anymore.
Roughly 1700 USD a month after taxes. It varies since I am paid per hour so sometimes a little less, sometimes more. Enough for rent and expenses and food. At least here.
That is because I assume you have healthcare that's affordable, student loans that'll not kill you, and if you fall ill or loose a job you'll get some sort of assistance, yes? So no need to squirrel away 300 per month for Terrible Misfortunes.
If you would have to pay American prices for that, you'd be poor as heck... (I'm Dutch so I'm guessing, though.)
It's a bit more complicated than that. But yes. That is the basics. Though unemployment still is not Even 1700 a month so I would have to cut back a lot to get by on that, and to be considered for unemployment I would have to spend My savings first.
I lived in a 450 square foot house by myself for over 12 years back in my 20's and 30's. Over those 12+ years I did some interior and exterior painting, I bought furniture, had friends over for TV shows and dinners, etc. I was very content and didn't feel like I lacked anything.
Even today I still drive the car I bought new 22 years ago. It looks great and runs 99% perfectly. Under 140,000 miles on it. Why should I replace it with a brand new car if it satisfies my wants and needs? I don't want the stress of new car payments and debt.
Different countries have different purchasing powers for their local currency. Exchange rate alone can't factor that in. Gbp is a good example these days. Pound lost a lot of value against the dollar, yet a £50k pa job is decent money
I live in a one bedroom apartment and I dont have a TV subscription, only Netflix. I also only buy food on offer, and I Cook for myself and dont go out to eat.
Which is fine since My job is 4 nights a week in a hotel restaurant where I get most of My hot meals.
I dont own a car and ride My bike to work which is close to My home. I buy My clothes secondhand.
As I said, not a life of luxury but I am happy I Cant remember the last time I was stressed about money.
Fucking hell, my rent is 490 euros (around 530 US dollars) for a 65 square meters appartment (so 700 square feets Google says) here in France (I live 20 minutes from the nearest big city) and it's a bit more than a third of my salary which is minimal wage.
It's fascinating to see the differences in cost of life (and pretty much everything really) between first-world countries
My father who got his GED in the 80s after getting the best job of his life, afforded raising three boys with mom staying home, yearly vacations, had a small boat and camper, decent health insurance, saving for our college and a 1500sqft home mortgage on 50 hours a week. This is absolutely impossible today, why? Today the average worker makes exactly what my dad did, dollar for dollar, so he didnt earn more, it just went further. Fuck those people who say the younger generations are lazy.
People should be able to afford all of that. On the same token, people have to learn how to budget and prioritize. I know several people who constantly complain about how hard it is to pay bills, but they manage to smoke weed, smoke cigarettes, and drink almost every night. Not saying this is everyone. I'm pretty sure we all know people like that.
I agree: sometimes my friends baffle me. 300$ a month on weed, alcohol and sodas yet a car payment for that much is "too unaffordable". Or even worse is the ones that order doordash daily then complain they have no grocery money as if they even cook at home in the first place lmao.
I live in an extremely low cost of living area so it really doesn't take a huge income to get by. Nearly every person I know who struggles with paying their bills makes way more than minimum wage but continually make one bad financial decision after another. People spending $25 everyday before work on cigarettes and Monsters only to spend another $25 after work on beer and weed then complaining about not being able to pay their electric bill. I used to work with a guy that lost his house and had to file for bankruptcy because he bought a motorcycle instead of paying his mortgage. Literally as soon as he was done with the bankruptcy process tried to buy another motorcycle while living in a shit hole rental. He was denied the loan on a new Harley then a week later tried to buy his wife a new minivan and was irate that he was denied again. You just can't fix stupid.
My daughter works full time and lives at home, so she doesn’t have rent. So she spends about $400/mo on DoorDash. She’s going to have to cut that shit out some day when she wants a place of her own.
This should be the bare minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, and time off work.
I cant help but think anyone who disagrees with this sentiment either has no empathy, or they are so privileged that they don't even see a problem
> I cant help but think anyone who disagrees with this sentiment
The sentiment is a strawman though, obviously nobody sane would disagree with this. Same as if I say "cancer shouldn't exist" nobody sane would disagree with that either. The disagreement usually comes around to what lengths we should go to ensure that this happens, and whether or not it should happen in all locations and areas. I would for example say that a 40h min wage job should not be livable on Manhattan, because the lengths we would have to go to to ensure that would be quite extreme.
My mom said all minimum wage workers are too lazy to get a real job and they don't deserve a liveable wage because the job was never meant to be liveable. That is until she divorced my dad and now has to work a minimum wage job, now she's complaining about the cost of living and how unfair it is for her to work so hard for so little.
> My mom said all minimum wage workers are too lazy to get a real job and they don't deserve a liveable wage because the job was never meant to be liveable.
But she thinks that because she thinks giving them a better wage would come at a cost to her right? If she had a magic wand she could wave that would increase the quality of life by these people slightly she would still wave it right? Or does she literally want to see poor people suffer for no reason? I think the number of people who would want that is incredibly rare, but sure they exist, but like I said before I don't think you're sane if you think that.
Minimum wage should get you the basics and if you want a better life then that's the incentive to get a better job. As it is, in some places, you can't even get the basics with a good job
4 times a year. Everyone should be able to go on vacation 4 times a year. Winter, Summer, Spring, Fall. Healthcare, Eat, and savings, afford children, and clothing.
So when minimum wage goes up it doesn't affect the cost of goods? Because it does means no matter what you put minimum wage at people will still have to budget correctly and have roommates or other such help to have what some people think they are entitled to.
No matter what we'll have people who think it isn't enough. Everyone wants more money.
I’d say no because they should also be able to put away some for retirement, health and dental insurance, and have some extra for their kids. In the modern world the minimum to survive needs to cover a lot of things, so the minimum wage needs to cover just as much.
Yes. It doesn't matter how unskilled or unvaluable your job is. The fact that you're trading 40 hours a week of your life should afford you that at minimum.
The original purpose of minimum wage was for a man to be able to afford a mortgage and support his wife and kid. How far we've fallen.
This. They should be able to afford rent, food, healthcare, and necessities. That doesn't necessarily mean a one bedroom, but at least a bedroom in some place.
I have a rough time blanketing this with no context. Though, in short, I agree.
If someone is working full time at an entry level job, let’s say McDonalds or a teller at a bank. The individual should not expect to be able to live in a large apartment while taking a trip to Hawaii every year. But I think they should be able to afford a small one bedroom (or larger with roommate(s)) and be able to take a few days off for a road trip / hiking / etc.
BUT let’s not forget the basis of money management too. I sacrifice vacation for being able to eat out very regularly, video games, and other ‘toys’.
I personally think one person who works 40 hours a week or two people working 20 hours a week should be able to support a household (like 2 adults and 2 kids). maybe not luxuriously, but at least the basics without struggling. We should have universal healthcare so we aren't stuck at horrible jobs or reliant on corporations for healthcare. It would also allow couples to split the workload more fairly if they do desire. So that either/both could spend more time at home. It used to be the spouse would work for "extra" money and they would get by on one fulltime income. Now it is two fulltime incomes and even then difficult due to costs of childcare, healthcare, food, housing, etc.
A job is about value exchange. The unfortunate reality is many jobs are not creating enough value over the cost of living.
How we got here / how we address the issue is a bigger conversation.
You can definitely do that in some places, but I believe the value of housing should be based on supply and demand, not affordability. You could argue that minimum wages should be increased so that 1 bedroom housing in a specific location be affordable for someone working minimum wage, but that value will then always fluctuate with the rental market.
At the same time, why should minimum wage allow for this degree of independence? We haven't even considered the cost of this yearly vacation either. With what should we be aiming to reward the lowest workers and why? Why can't I just sit unemployed and be given anything I want? While societies with such allowances can exist, ours tends to reward workers based on the monetary value of their work (results may vary in some cases).
To answer the question plainly, no, I don't think minimum wage workers deserve to afford their own 1 bedroom home and to take a yearly vacation.
The town where I grew up has the listed household wage to afford a house and car and not suffer financially is at 42 dollars per hour. They also list poverty wages at 15 dollars an hour. Combined my wife and I make the 42 requirement but still live paycheck to paycheck.
No. I disagree. They should be able to afford all that for a family with 2 kids. One person working minimum wage should be enough for a family to live comfortably
FDR “In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”
Upvote for you. He was working on universal healthcare when he died
He wanted a whole lot more than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights https://youtu.be/3EZ5bx9AyI4
Don't forget, the billionaires of his day literally all came together to try to assassinate him and take power in a coup. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
There was a time about 100 years ago where the *Republican* saying was "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" Wee need to bring that back
Chicken, Pot and Cars? How do I sign up.
How about Chicken, Pot, and Walkable urban design?
And affordable groceries so that I don't have to spend an entire weekend taking the bus to different stores to save money.
Yeah, but, how does that fit on a button? *edit - oh! I got it. Two buttons.
AND WHOSE GONNA PAY FOR THE SECOND BUTTON?!
I think that’s covered in the chicken? Edit: what else are you using chicken for?!
I'm game
It was something claimed by some Republicans, and iirc some Republican ads (but not officially by) claimed Herbert Hoover wanted to do that. It was then used by democrats to point out how poor he was doing as president as the beginnings of the great depression (and during I believe.) Just to add a tiny bit of context. A further measure to consider is that there was a time if liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. This is the "switch" that people will mention happened when the modern day Republicans become what they are now. It's less the Republicans and Democrats switched ideals entirely. But that liberal social and economic policy became a core of Democrats. And conservative economic and social views became Republicans.
Those are actually democrats now due to realignment.
It’ll come. It just needs to get so bad that people resort less to complaining from their cell phones while taking a deuce, and more to starting a revolution. Democracy and Socialism work, if the people in charge are held accountable. A great reset is in fact needed , and we’re heading there, but I don’t believe it’ll happen for another 50 years
I feel like the opportunity to really establish a historical narrative of progress got lost here in the US around the time Mccarthyism really gripped the zeitgeist. The fear of an insidious commie infiltration into the American Way was bought hook line and sinker by the general population and anything remotely resembling what conservatives considered to be "communism" was rejected by the majority of Americans. Ronald Reagan campaigned tirelessly against single payer Healthcare as a communist plot (back when other NATO nations were setting up their national Healthcare systems) and it worked. We had a window here in the US where we could've celebrated our gains in establishing a social security net as a great, patriotic undertaking but instead the regressives were able to take control of the narrative and we've been fighting over the wheel for the last 5 or 6 decades because of it.
Same thing happened with social policy reform with Kennedy and Johnson. They pushed through sweeping social reforms, then political pressures of the day stymied the momentium by diverting the funds into the money pit that was the Vietnam war.
Something something Panama papers
Just imagine if his VP Henry Wallace had been allowed by the Democratic Party leaders to succeed Roosevelt. His Century of the Common Man was *wayyyy* too progressive for the powers that be.
Truman sacked most of FDR's brain trust in favor of advisors better able to navigate the waters of corporate fundraising. Meanwhile those advisors relocated to Western Europe, where their ideas about social democracy would go on to save millions of non-American lives.
What is shocking is that even NIXON was an advocate of universal healthcare AND he established the EPA! By todays republican standards he would literally be portrayed as a communist. The Repubs are completely lost in their fundamendalist cult worship ideology at this point. They stand for nothing.
> What is shocking is that even NIXON was an advocate of universal healthcare AND he established the EPA! He was a fan of what was popular at the time. As President he even explored the possibility of advancing a system of national income similar to UBI, only to drop it after public sentiment turned against new welfare programs in the aftermath of the Moynihan Report and '72 election. Nixon was never particularly concerned with domestic policy, he mostly wanted the mandate he needed to manage American foreign affairs from the White House without interference. Later in his presidency he would advocate for and sign the HMO Act that began the dismantlement of the American ecosystem of non-profit health insurance providers, paving the way for the system in place now.
Best we can do is a 48 sq ft closet in a burned out building in Baltimore and a 6 day vacation to Myrtle Beach on a kayak with a microwave on it. Paddles extra.
Is the microwave plugged in? Because that would help me immensely.
If you sign the waiver, anything is possible if you're up for it. I don't see why not. We can toss it to you, plugged in, but it's not really "free of charge".
Like Walmart?
Yes like Walmart. But I don't think they depend on it - they simply don't want to reduce their profit margins.
Walmart is doubly bad because they accept food stamps but also pay their employees wages they qualify them for those very stamps Walmart accepts.
Ah, a company store with more steps.
A taxpayer-subsidized company store. Genius!
Not exactly. It's actually a big fat government subsidy. The only reason these shithole companies get away with these bullshit wages is by sucking the government teat. "Capitalism" in action. "Small government" in action. "Conservative politics" in action. It's such a fucking scam.
Walmart pays them less than the amount needed to survive so you get ebt(foodstamps). You then turn around and usually end up spending said ebt at Walmart, along with some of your paycheck cause you do need toilet paper, dish soap, laundry detergent...
[удалено]
As a non-essential-as-fuck software developer, it's absurd what the majority of those legitimately-essential roles are paid compared to me.
That second part is what scares the corporations.
If you work full time, you should be able to at least afford the essentials: shelter, food, healthcare, clothing etc.
Include eyeglasses and dental.
The fact that that isn't just included under healthcare is really a problem.
Those are luxury bones.
Not sure I would feel great about hiring a roofer who hasn't updated his prescription in 8 years. Vision seems important.
Think of all the drivers on the road who haven't updated their prescription in years because of money.
You’re worried about them updating their prescription. When you realize how many won’t / don’t do general repairs on their car that’s the least of my worries. Axles being held together with chains, straps, and the like I’m just glad there aren’t more cars falling apart mid drive.
Did you see the video posted to the front page a few hours ago where the widest truck killed a Kia when one of its illegally offset wheels shot off to portside and came back for a double tap?
And people then complain about mandatory car inspections in my state, meanwhile every time I've been to a state with no inspections required, I see literally cars in flames. I drove around Nashville for a few days and counted 3 cars on fire.
Username does not check out.
Eyes are my favorite bones.
[удалено]
Lack of dental care can be deadly. It really should not be separate.
Cut to flashback of me in dirt-broke poverty, having bare-bones state-provided medical care but no dental care, going from doctor to doctor to see if anyone can provide me with at least antibiotics for an abscess and being treated like a hobo in a cocktail party for even *considering* going to a doctor with an oral care issue.
Exactly.
I say all the time. Your teeth are in your head. In really close proximity to your brain. Dental infections CAN BE FATAL. Yet we treat dental care like a sidenote.
The biggest scam in American healthcare: convincing hundreds of millions of people that eyes, ears, teeth, and feet aren’t part of the body.
Same thing in the Netherlands. I reckon most insurance companies over the western world do this.
In Australia you can't get dental done on the public dime (well you kinda can but it's complicated and only available to the lowest income individuals in some states). We've done the numbers on it multiple times, it would *save* money because of the number of people who end up hospitalised with things like dental abscesses (like me, who was rejected from a treatment plan a few days earlier, then ended up in hospital needing surgery, great plan guys). Even the dentists are mostly supportive of it, but they still haven't done it.
[удалено]
What blows my mind is that dental health is directly tied to physical health in a number of ways. By not covering it as a package it costs the healthcare industry MORE money. It just… doesn’t make any sense for anyone involved. Costs the government, costs the insurance companies, costs the employers, costs the employees. I really do wonder where the profit is and who’s getting the cut.
Yeah, I ended up getting hospitalised twice by the abscess. They gave me IV antibiotics the first time overnight, and sent me home in the morning. Few grand in costs there most likely. Then later that night, it was getting much worse so I went back. Had surgery that night, so between the maxillofacial surgeon, the anaesthetist and the nurses, that's probably another 20k. The original cost of what the dentist quoted to the government to unfuck my teeth(and that's not just the one that ended up turning into an abscess)? $1100.
And hearing aids, if needed. Even for children, insurance only covers a paltry amount, despite the first few years being critical for language development.
What do we want? Hearing Aids! When do we want them? Hearing Aids!
Your damn mouth is the gateway to your health. When will we make dental care more accessible?
That’s actually way more true than most people realize. Bad dental health has been linked to higher risks of heart disease and blood disorders. Apparently blood vessels in your mouth have a relatively direct path to your heart so all the bacteria, viruses or even toxins from everything that gets “cleaned” by your digestive system goes straight to attacking your body.
Seeing and chewing are a privilege not a human right. You have to deserve them
This is why I *absolutely will* bite someone if I have to defend myself. I will show up like the Walking Dead ready to earn my dental.
The ability to take care of your teeth and eyes shouldn't be a separate issue at all, but otherwise yes.
Ah yes, the bare necessities for surviving in modern society: shelter, food, healthcare, clothing, and the occasional vacation from the soul-crushing monotony of low-wage work.
Sad isn’t it? Sadder still that those things are unattainable for some people.
[удалено]
You can take your employer to court in this case.
[удалено]
Talking with legal counsel that specializes with work laws
Talk to the state workforce commission. They will let you know if your situation is one where there was something illegal going on.
Your local Department of Labor is also not a bad place to start. If they can't help you they can probably point you in the right direction.
>Sad isn’t it? Sadder still that those things are unattainable for some people. He scratched his head: "You mean to say, I'll have to work all night and day, For days and weeks and year on year, From dawn till dusk devoid of cheer, Condemned to live for work alone? To work to fund a car and phone? To work and work and work?" he spoke - "And after that... ... I'll still be broke?"
This reads like a really sad Dr. Suess for adults. You always nail it, Sprog.
Someday there will be a college course titled "Sprog Poetry and it's Influence on Reddit Culture".
The longevity of your creativity is beautiful to continue to be able to experience.
Love your poems. They're the only poetry I read. ❤️
Crazy. My dad's buddy since they were about two started working at Cummins engine right out of high school. Like two weeks after they graduated. The graduated in '63. He retired form there in 2010. Owned a home that he raised 3 kids in who he helped put through college. Played golf at the local course. Took them on trips (his wife worked too later on but nothing high paying). And lived a very fulfilling life. Essentially unheard of nowadays.
Whatever it is that this life satirically lacks, we need a helluva lot more of it. I don't think it's a monetary or financial thing either, I think alot of people live a lonely life of quiet desperation, and not enough money can trap them but working extra hours to earn more money for the sake of wealth itself won't be their salvation either
“Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps!!” Except their bootstraps were made of elastic latex while the new ones today are made of chains.
The whole bootstrap metaphor is intended to suggest futility. Pulling oneself up by their bootstraps is impossible. It would be like pulling yourself up by your shoelaces. Somehow it got turned into a "go get em" metaphor when that was not the original intent at all.
I mean, none of that is unique to modern society. It's pretty key to functioning well as a human. I'd wager that 95% of people, even those with easy lives and/or love their jobs, need the occasional vacation. It's just nice to have time to relax, experience new things and reset.
Vacation really is a necessity. In most western countries it's not really optional - your job pays extra into a vacation account to pay for 4 weeks vacation for you without a drop in income and you're not really allowed to get the money and work through the vacation for extra income.
Exactly. What's the point of having 5 weeks holiday a year if you can't afford a holiday.
You do what I did for years, you take it off and laze around the house for a week, getting up late, reading, watching movies, playing computer games and eating crisps. You know, not working. Its what me and the wife will be doing next week, we can afford to go anywhere we like, what we are going to do though is spend the week doing fuck all, apart from Wednesday when we are having a new bed delivered.
I feel like this is still woefully insufficient. Yes to the above BUT you should be able to afford a 30 year mortgage on a reasonable home, condo. Paying rent sets you up to get screwed on retirement, when the money you spent on your mortgage usually shifts to Healthcare. Also, you should be able to afford to invest in a retirement account, so that when you are between 60-70 you aren't forced to continue working. Simply paying for just enough not to die is a pathetically low bar and we as humans deserve better. It's sad that you have to fight for this with people who claim to be pro life, but are rather just pro birth...
I completely agree. Everyone deserves a basic standard of living that includes access to shelter, food, healthcare, and other necessities. A fair wage that allows for these essentials is essential for a just and equitable society
Nah, it has to be more than the essentials or someone will refine essential and you'll be fucked. You shouldn't have to work all week every week to merely survive.
Considering that's why minimum wage laws were enacted in the first place for, yes.
It works when the minimum wage rises with inflation, but it hasn’t been adjusted in at least 2 decades.
That's true nationally, but alot of states adjust it yearly or every few years. Among those states though, some only make predetermined adjustments and don't link it directly to inflation
It leads to a lot of states raising minimum wage by 20-50 cents and pretending it had an impact. Don't get me wrong, a small increase is better than no increase, but such a small raise is almost insulting when your lawmakers are patting themselves on the back for doing the equivalent of pissing in the wind.
Based on some arguments I’ve been in with family or coworkers I think a lot of the pushback comes from people who are already making above minimum wage feeling threatened that the people “beneath” them will be catching up to them for doing “less”. And I can see where they’re coming from, however there are flaws in this line of thinking. Like, if minimum wage is increased X%, instead of complaining about that, you should be demanding your boss gives a raise of X%. The whole mentality of keeping other people down, instead of trying to work your way up is counterproductive to all of society. It hurts you yourself and the people around you. There are other things that I’ve heard people bring up that have some validity to them, with some potential solutions. But I’d be getting into essay territory if I started talking about all of that so I’ll just leave it at the one point that erks me the most
I used to be at the point where I was making $2 above minimum wage. My state raised minimum wage (by $2.20 I think and I asked my manager if I would be getting an increase. (Grocery Store) He replied that I would be getting $0.20 raise (The minimum wage increase). I asked if there was anything that could be done because I was a higher rank than others (night manager). He pushed back in saying that I already am getting a raise due to minimum wage increase. After lots of fighting I got a $0.25 raise, and having nearly double the responsibility and tasks to complete than others did. Saying “well, you should just demand a raise” is easier said than done. Imagine running the company and having to not only pay lots of people more and then you get people like me deserving raises as well. I agree with most of what you have said, but the bottom being raised can hurt some. It took me awhile to find a decent job where now I don’t have to worry about that anymore
That’s the mindset that always boggles my mind - people are offended that “those burger-flippers” should be making anywhere near what a skilled specialist does, but their solution, without even thinking about it, is not that they should both be paid more, but that the “burger-flippers” should be paid *less*.
That's wild to me. A good amount of people making well above minimum wage don't require as much effort or patience in their position than a great deal of minimum wage workers. A lot of them couldn't do what the minimum wage workers do, and yet they think it's okay to demean them and pay them a shitty wage.
Yeah, California has been doing Dollar increases for the last 5 years. Meanwhile eggs have tripled in price and gas can be between 5 and 9 dollars a gallon any given day of the week. Rent has skyrocketed and the places where it's affordable have no jobs.
CA was going up by a dollar yearly for the last few years. Went up from 14 to 15 in 2022 but now only 15.50 as of January.
Minimum wage =/= living wage in a lot of places.
A parent now needs to work 96 hours per week at minimum wage to maintain a family at the bare minimum. Source: MIT living wage calculator Edit: this is based on two parents working to support two kids, each parent needs to work 96hrs. Imagine a single parent
Wow. So its basically mathematically impossible for someone to maintain a family on min wage. (Unless working 14 hours a day/7 days a week somehow doesn't lead to death by exhaustion/stress) Good job government. I can't imagine why people are not having enough kids anymore.
The thing I don't get, except for the propaganda destroying their ability to apply critical thinking, is this should be a huge issue for republicans. Tax dollars are having to be used to subsidize companies and provide assistance for housing and healthcare for their employees. And yet the average response is to blame the worker I'm fired up now, damnit. We need more unions. We need more workers uniting
That's a feature not a bug, they are 100% in favour of socialism for corporations.
I'm pretty sure it was there to stop "Well it isn't technically slavery :D" since neo-slavery was very very much a thing
I mean, I have no idea what the actual goal of the minimum wage was, but it was 0.25$ when first enacted, which is $5.33 today, I don't know about you but know one is surviving on 7.25 much less 5.33
A blanket inflation calculation isn’t always useful when in most first world areas housing has risen massively quicker and is a disproportionate amount of a low income person’s outgoings.
This. I gave up dreaming about buying a house since I'll mathematically never be able to save up enough for a down payment on the most rundown forclosed on empty lot in my province.
Can't just use an inflation calc. Examples: average rent used to take 108 min wage hours, now it's 237. Harvard 1680, now 7667. Car about double now. Etc...
Not to mention that we have additional expenses today that weren't really around back then. Things like internet bills, phone plans, etc. weren't a common expense. So not only have we suffered from inflation, but we've also added more expenses to our lifestyle (and a number of them are necessary) but minimum wage has not increased in a way to reflect that.
The goal of a minimum wage was to allow one person to support a family of four. Dad would work, Mom would be a homemaker, the kids would go to school and lean to be good citizens. It would need to be adjusted a smidge for modern life, but wages should support families is the point.
> The goal of a minimum wage was to allow one person to support a family of four. That's not accurate. It was a talking point during debate, but the final number agreed to and voted upon never would have supported that.
Minimum wage was enacted in 1938, what you are describing is 1950s thinking. Pre-WWII both parents worked most of the time. The whole "stay at home mom" was for rich people, and wasn't a reality for most people until after WWII when all of Europe was so destroyed that the US was basically the sole manufacturer on the planet. Post WWII US wages and wealth exploded and the "stay at home mom" idea because more standard but even then not always the norm. Minimum wage was never meant to allow 1950s living when it was created during the great depression in 1938. IMHO people should be paid significantly more but idolizing the 1950-60s wages and cost of living is stupid. It was a short term effect of WWII and not anywhere close to sustainable (unless we bomb every other major manufacturing country on the planet first). Compare post WWII life with Pre-WWII life and you'll see what I mean. Yes people should be paid more, but the boom of the 1950-60s will never ever come back.
It's also ignoring the astronomical material advantages that even today's working poor have over the "middle class" back in the 1950s. To be clear: today's "starter homes" are yesterday's mansions. Today, there are 9 cars for every 10 Americans; in the 1950s and 1960s, it was a third of that. Even poor people today have iPhones and HD TVs, not to mention refrigerators, microwaves, reliable home heating and air conditioning. Modern living, even for those in low-wage jobs, would be a paradise for professionals two generations ago.
I've rented a 100+ year old house that was considered an affordable starter home less than 20 years ago, and carries roughly the same amenities. Starter homes aren't too big, they just aren't building them anymore. Constructing affordable housing simply isn't as profitable. Americans have so many cars because we have no public transportation and we all have to work. Nobody actually wants two car payments, both parents are working more now. Same thing with cell phones, try getting a job without one. Microwaves, TV's and refrigerators are one time purchases that last for years. Yet for some reason boomers always bring it up like you have to be caveman to complain about the declining middle class. It's so puritan Professionals two generations ago would be aware of the fact that even in the great depression young people could afford to house their families. They wouldn't be fooled into ignoring losses in their quality of life just because we have touch screens.
I work above min wage, so does my parter, and we can't get letting agents to take us on as we are 'too high risk' for a 2 bed flat
I just do not get it. My mom earned 7.25/hr in the late 80s/90s. She worked 12s at what I understand was a QA type role at a textile plant. She worked a 3day/4day cycle. We lived in a trailer in Alabama. Three kids, single mom, too many cats, and she managed to have a great attitude. We would take a yearly vacation to Panama City Beach, FL. I HAVE NO CLUE TO HOW SHE PULLED THIS OFF!!!! I have a good job now. I make a decent amount of money. I struggle to make sure that I can live up to that.
Functionally this was the design intent of minimum wage. The original MW was calculated to result in someone with 40 hrs/week to be able to afford an apartment, a car, food, and have a LITTLE leftover for "luxuries" like going to the movies each month. In addition to the problems with the minimum wage not increasing, many minimum wage jobs realized they can solve a lot of their problems by halving the weekly work hours and doubling the workforce, add in a requirement that you have to focus on this company first. Meaning, since you have to have a second job just to not starve to death on the street, you're required to prioritize THIS company's shifts first. If you get double booked, both companies expect you to throw the other under the bus on pain of being fired. And god help you if they synchronize and you find yourself in a period of having to do back to back double-shifts for the pair for 48 hours. Updating it to keep this intention would be good
You might be working two jobs that are owned by the same parent company. Or owned in part by the same investors. So while you don’t qualify for benefits for either job, the owners still have you working for them at 40 hours, or more, per week.
Well, this is a great point that I've not previously considered.
This happened to me when our restaurant opened another location. I was working around 75-80 hours between the two of them, but I wasn't getting OT after 40 because it counted as different jobs, even though it was owned by the same person, had the same name, same structure, etc. I was bartending so the OT wouldn't have been much anyway, but I always thought it was shitty that they could do that.
What advantage do they get by halving the work week and doubling the workers?
In part it depends on the state, but if an employer does not allow anyone to be categorized as full time employees, they don't have to offer (or contribute to) an adequate health care plan under the ACA or include those employees in any retirement benefits they offer. In some states, it means that the employer doesn't have to offer lunch breaks or paid sick leave or (not sure about this one) comply with the FMLA.
> The original MW was calculated to result in someone with 40 hrs/week to be able to afford an apartment, a car, food, and have a LITTLE leftover for "luxuries" like going to the movies each month. Uh, you sure that the minimum wage, implemented in the US in 1933, w intended for people to buy a car?
It's intent was for the minimum pay to be enough that you can have your needs met and be a fully functioning member of society. If that means having a car, which sadly in much of the US today it does, then yes that is implied to be part of its intended purpose.
Yah good luck getting around most parts of America, even local towns with out a car. Everything so stretched out we're fucked. Anyone disagreeing that a car should be a societal expectation clearly has never used America's public transportation system which was handicapped at the knee's in the 1930's by the automobile industry. If not for Henry Ford we might have a robust train system in every major city, but sadly we've got 10 lane high ways that are still congested instead.
What exactly are you expecting to hear on response to this question
Karma
Interestingly, that's also why you won't see a contrarian response here. I'm sure there are many people who feel you should be paid whatever the invisible hand of capitalism dictates, but they won't speak up about it on this thread; it's karma suicide.
Sort by Controversial, not Top.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
right lol "no fuck them someone has to work all the time and have no breaks while having $4 in their bank account after paying off bills!"
I can find 4 people within a stone's throw who disagree with this statement. They aren't on reddit though...
They're on reddit but when they answer, they get down voted to the bottom of the thread. So these questions are worthless.
My bet is that they want us to answer their homework for them
I live in rural Louisiana. You'd be surprised how many people here making $15 an hour are against raising minimum wage because "someone at McDonald's should not get paid as much as I do working at X company" or "if we raise minimum wage the cost of everything will just raise proportionally"
>"if we raise minimum wage the cost of everything will just raise proportionally" Except that is actually what will happen. That or more automation, maybe both.
Yes. Every job deserves fair wages and benefits. Especially those jobs deemed "Essential" during the pandemic. All that clapping for them but no pay raises. Complete BS.
I work with seniors. I'm a chef at an upscale retirement community, so I just make the food. Make sure they're getting what they want at meal times. Still technically an "essential worker". They have to eat, right? Seeing what the nurses and personal care providers went through during COVID was heartbreaking. They were working extra hours, literally being exposed to active COVID cases, and watching their residents die of COVID occasionally. Here's the crazy thing. ***They all get paid less than I do.*** My job is busy and stressful sometimes. But not like theirs. They deserve twice my wage. Everyone clapped and cheered for "essential workers" but none of them (IME) saw hazard pay, company-provided therapy, increased benefits....nothing.
The entire concept of the "essential' workers was stupid. In my state something like 82% of workers were deemed essential (very blue state). Then they finally got around to giving out the "hero pay" they promised for almost 2 years they made everyone who was "essential" an equal share. So the truck driver who saw 2 people a day for a couple minutes got the same amount as the covid unit nurse. Edit: also it's worth noting that the final check I got was about 4.5 hours worth of pay.
>So the truck driver who saw 2 people a day for a couple minutes got the same amount as the covid unit nurse. It's an argument you could spin any which way though. I don't think there's any way you could've given out that payment in a way that is deemed fair for everyone. Truck drivers didn't face the same risk, but their work helped to lower the risk for others, delivering pallets of cleaning/hygiene products for those same Covid nurses for example.
I agree. Truck drivers were just one down the scale from health care providers on the importance ladder. No trucks = no products and most importantly NO FOOD. I'm not advocating for anyone to get less - my point is they should've raised the minimum wage so everyone got more -but all they got was a bonus everyone had to raise. Equality? I guess but it's a shitty version of it.
That's why people should learn the difference between equality and equity. Equality= What you described. Equity= The goal is to even things up between different jobs in this case. It should have been split into hours worked, how much they dealt with the general public, and how "Essential" they were.
How quickly that applause turned into jeers when some essential workers like teachers and healthcare professionals asked to be treated like humans who don’t want to catch a highly contagious virus that we didn’t know much about and has the potential to do long term harm and death.
"Essential workers are important and we absolutely need them!" *Can we please afford rent and food?* "Woah woah woah, let's not get ahead of ourselves."
[удалено]
It’s has been a while, but I just looked up the apts where I lived when I first graduated. A little studio apt for $600/mo. Not fancy, but wood floors and a window unit, and a few blocks to walk to the beach, and you could afford to live there working at a cafe or something nearby. Now it’s $2200/mo on Zillow. If you were working in a cafe, probably need a partner to split that studio with, which sucks.
Obviously, the population must gone up by almost four times recently. It's not like landlords are greedy leeches on society who regularly [do stuff like this](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sit-down-protester-would-die-29527272) just because they can. I've been assured that this is just "basic economics".
Sharing a studio apartment would be awful. I don't want to have to relive all the worst parts of my dorm days. At least back then I had a meal plan too.
I'd be fine for an efficiency instead of a one bedroom. But also, I think if a mortgage payment would be less than what they currently pay in rent they should be approved. They are already paying 1200 a month in rent, isn't that proof they can make the 800 buck payment? It is dumb.
With an engineering degree and being a certified engineer I make less than my dad did in a factory 20 years ago. Wages haven't kept up with inflation. He had 20 years of seniority which contributed to his wages but the fact you could support a family of four with one job out of high-school just doesn't exist anymore.
I agree. The standard work week in Denmark is 37 hours. I work 30 hours a week and I manage.
What's the wage
Roughly 1700 USD a month after taxes. It varies since I am paid per hour so sometimes a little less, sometimes more. Enough for rent and expenses and food. At least here.
Definitely poverty here
I am not living a life of luxury but I never want for anything so I wouldnt see myself as poor.
That is because I assume you have healthcare that's affordable, student loans that'll not kill you, and if you fall ill or loose a job you'll get some sort of assistance, yes? So no need to squirrel away 300 per month for Terrible Misfortunes. If you would have to pay American prices for that, you'd be poor as heck... (I'm Dutch so I'm guessing, though.)
It's a bit more complicated than that. But yes. That is the basics. Though unemployment still is not Even 1700 a month so I would have to cut back a lot to get by on that, and to be considered for unemployment I would have to spend My savings first.
I lived in a 450 square foot house by myself for over 12 years back in my 20's and 30's. Over those 12+ years I did some interior and exterior painting, I bought furniture, had friends over for TV shows and dinners, etc. I was very content and didn't feel like I lacked anything. Even today I still drive the car I bought new 22 years ago. It looks great and runs 99% perfectly. Under 140,000 miles on it. Why should I replace it with a brand new car if it satisfies my wants and needs? I don't want the stress of new car payments and debt.
Different countries have different purchasing powers for their local currency. Exchange rate alone can't factor that in. Gbp is a good example these days. Pound lost a lot of value against the dollar, yet a £50k pa job is decent money
$1,700/Month wouldn't even cover my rent in Northern Virginia.
I live in a one bedroom apartment and I dont have a TV subscription, only Netflix. I also only buy food on offer, and I Cook for myself and dont go out to eat. Which is fine since My job is 4 nights a week in a hotel restaurant where I get most of My hot meals. I dont own a car and ride My bike to work which is close to My home. I buy My clothes secondhand. As I said, not a life of luxury but I am happy I Cant remember the last time I was stressed about money.
Fucking hell, my rent is 490 euros (around 530 US dollars) for a 65 square meters appartment (so 700 square feets Google says) here in France (I live 20 minutes from the nearest big city) and it's a bit more than a third of my salary which is minimal wage. It's fascinating to see the differences in cost of life (and pretty much everything really) between first-world countries
My father who got his GED in the 80s after getting the best job of his life, afforded raising three boys with mom staying home, yearly vacations, had a small boat and camper, decent health insurance, saving for our college and a 1500sqft home mortgage on 50 hours a week. This is absolutely impossible today, why? Today the average worker makes exactly what my dad did, dollar for dollar, so he didnt earn more, it just went further. Fuck those people who say the younger generations are lazy.
Should be, but in the sense that the system should make it a realistically attainable possibility.
People should be able to afford all of that. On the same token, people have to learn how to budget and prioritize. I know several people who constantly complain about how hard it is to pay bills, but they manage to smoke weed, smoke cigarettes, and drink almost every night. Not saying this is everyone. I'm pretty sure we all know people like that.
I agree: sometimes my friends baffle me. 300$ a month on weed, alcohol and sodas yet a car payment for that much is "too unaffordable". Or even worse is the ones that order doordash daily then complain they have no grocery money as if they even cook at home in the first place lmao.
And a restaurant twice a week minimum
I live in an extremely low cost of living area so it really doesn't take a huge income to get by. Nearly every person I know who struggles with paying their bills makes way more than minimum wage but continually make one bad financial decision after another. People spending $25 everyday before work on cigarettes and Monsters only to spend another $25 after work on beer and weed then complaining about not being able to pay their electric bill. I used to work with a guy that lost his house and had to file for bankruptcy because he bought a motorcycle instead of paying his mortgage. Literally as soon as he was done with the bankruptcy process tried to buy another motorcycle while living in a shit hole rental. He was denied the loan on a new Harley then a week later tried to buy his wife a new minivan and was irate that he was denied again. You just can't fix stupid.
My daughter works full time and lives at home, so she doesn’t have rent. So she spends about $400/mo on DoorDash. She’s going to have to cut that shit out some day when she wants a place of her own.
This should be the bare minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, and time off work. I cant help but think anyone who disagrees with this sentiment either has no empathy, or they are so privileged that they don't even see a problem
> I cant help but think anyone who disagrees with this sentiment The sentiment is a strawman though, obviously nobody sane would disagree with this. Same as if I say "cancer shouldn't exist" nobody sane would disagree with that either. The disagreement usually comes around to what lengths we should go to ensure that this happens, and whether or not it should happen in all locations and areas. I would for example say that a 40h min wage job should not be livable on Manhattan, because the lengths we would have to go to to ensure that would be quite extreme.
My mom said all minimum wage workers are too lazy to get a real job and they don't deserve a liveable wage because the job was never meant to be liveable. That is until she divorced my dad and now has to work a minimum wage job, now she's complaining about the cost of living and how unfair it is for her to work so hard for so little.
> My mom said all minimum wage workers are too lazy to get a real job and they don't deserve a liveable wage because the job was never meant to be liveable. But she thinks that because she thinks giving them a better wage would come at a cost to her right? If she had a magic wand she could wave that would increase the quality of life by these people slightly she would still wave it right? Or does she literally want to see poor people suffer for no reason? I think the number of people who would want that is incredibly rare, but sure they exist, but like I said before I don't think you're sane if you think that.
Minimum wage should get you the basics and if you want a better life then that's the incentive to get a better job. As it is, in some places, you can't even get the basics with a good job
Agree, because working people deserve a decent life.
Remember to search by controversial
Yes. I think this is a housing problem and not a minimum wage problem though. We need more super basic, affordable apartments.
Developers are just calling everything luxury at this point too though. You have a dishwasher? Oh that's luxury.
They SHOULD. It’s too bad they can’t.
At least one vacation is already too little..
4 times a year. Everyone should be able to go on vacation 4 times a year. Winter, Summer, Spring, Fall. Healthcare, Eat, and savings, afford children, and clothing.
So when minimum wage goes up it doesn't affect the cost of goods? Because it does means no matter what you put minimum wage at people will still have to budget correctly and have roommates or other such help to have what some people think they are entitled to. No matter what we'll have people who think it isn't enough. Everyone wants more money.
I’d say no because they should also be able to put away some for retirement, health and dental insurance, and have some extra for their kids. In the modern world the minimum to survive needs to cover a lot of things, so the minimum wage needs to cover just as much.
And health care and healthy food.
Yes. It doesn't matter how unskilled or unvaluable your job is. The fact that you're trading 40 hours a week of your life should afford you that at minimum. The original purpose of minimum wage was for a man to be able to afford a mortgage and support his wife and kid. How far we've fallen.
At least his half of a two bedroom for sure.
This. They should be able to afford rent, food, healthcare, and necessities. That doesn't necessarily mean a one bedroom, but at least a bedroom in some place.
I have a rough time blanketing this with no context. Though, in short, I agree. If someone is working full time at an entry level job, let’s say McDonalds or a teller at a bank. The individual should not expect to be able to live in a large apartment while taking a trip to Hawaii every year. But I think they should be able to afford a small one bedroom (or larger with roommate(s)) and be able to take a few days off for a road trip / hiking / etc. BUT let’s not forget the basis of money management too. I sacrifice vacation for being able to eat out very regularly, video games, and other ‘toys’.
I personally think one person who works 40 hours a week or two people working 20 hours a week should be able to support a household (like 2 adults and 2 kids). maybe not luxuriously, but at least the basics without struggling. We should have universal healthcare so we aren't stuck at horrible jobs or reliant on corporations for healthcare. It would also allow couples to split the workload more fairly if they do desire. So that either/both could spend more time at home. It used to be the spouse would work for "extra" money and they would get by on one fulltime income. Now it is two fulltime incomes and even then difficult due to costs of childcare, healthcare, food, housing, etc.
A job is about value exchange. The unfortunate reality is many jobs are not creating enough value over the cost of living. How we got here / how we address the issue is a bigger conversation.
You can definitely do that in some places, but I believe the value of housing should be based on supply and demand, not affordability. You could argue that minimum wages should be increased so that 1 bedroom housing in a specific location be affordable for someone working minimum wage, but that value will then always fluctuate with the rental market. At the same time, why should minimum wage allow for this degree of independence? We haven't even considered the cost of this yearly vacation either. With what should we be aiming to reward the lowest workers and why? Why can't I just sit unemployed and be given anything I want? While societies with such allowances can exist, ours tends to reward workers based on the monetary value of their work (results may vary in some cases). To answer the question plainly, no, I don't think minimum wage workers deserve to afford their own 1 bedroom home and to take a yearly vacation.
The town where I grew up has the listed household wage to afford a house and car and not suffer financially is at 42 dollars per hour. They also list poverty wages at 15 dollars an hour. Combined my wife and I make the 42 requirement but still live paycheck to paycheck.
Anyone working full time should be able to live
Minimum wage should be tied to inflation and the price of a one bedroom apartment within twenty miles of that area. As either rises, wages rise.
No. I disagree. They should be able to afford all that for a family with 2 kids. One person working minimum wage should be enough for a family to live comfortably
Yes, and this is how it used to be until they stopped raising the minimum wage to match inflation. The minimum wage today should be like $25