"Nearly half of Americans can’t afford the basics of life anymore"

[GuitarStv]

Uber drivers are not slaves.  There are no chains around their wrists.  This is insulting to actual slaves.

If you check closely, nobody claimed that Uber drivers are slaves.


I sort of feel that saying 'not starving = good enough' is insulting to actual slaves . . . that's why I commented.

[Wrenchturner]

Uber drivers are not slaves.  There are no chains around their wrists.  This is insulting to actual slaves.

If you check closely, nobody claimed that Uber drivers are slaves.


I sort of feel that saying 'not starving = good enough' is insulting to actual slaves . . . that's why I commented.

How does price discovery occur without discomfort?

[PDXTabs]

EDITed to add - having re-read your statements, I can't tell if you were being serious or not.

Well he's not starving, which doctors and psychologists agree is the one and only basic factor one need achieve, so sounds like his life is pretty good.  Everyone's happy. Capitalism at work.

• He isn't starving this instant because right now someone is giving him a free place to stay. That's not capitalism, that's charity.*
• You are wrong.

* - well, it is capitalism. No one ever said capitalism wouldn't let people starve to death on the street.

[GuitarStv]

No one ever said capitalism wouldn't let people starve to death on the street.

True.  If you're a student of history, you're aware that the root of Marx's socialist ideas were a reaction against the inherent cruelty in the capitalist system.  The fact that pure capitalism is untenable is the reason why no country today operates a purely capitalist system.  They're all a mix of socialism and capitalism.

[Cool Friend]

EDITed to add - having re-read your statements, I can't tell if you were being serious or not.

Well he's not starving, which doctors and psychologists agree is the one and only basic factor one need achieve, so sounds like his life is pretty good.  Everyone's happy. Capitalism at work.

• He isn't starving this instant because right now someone is giving him a free place to stay. That's not capitalism, that's charity.*
• You are wrong.

* - well, it is capitalism. No one ever said capitalism wouldn't let people starve to death on the street.

I was being arch.  :)

[FIREstache]

That's a straw man argument.  I never stated anything about people choosing to starve.  With all the handouts, that's not even going to happen if they don't work at all, much less at the artificially wage inflated jobs they can work today.

You do realize that you writing something on a forum on the internet doesn't make it true, right? If you are 18-49 years old, living in the United States, and not working you don't get any food handouts. This again is unheard of in most of the developed western world.

Yet, I personally knew of 2 non-working people (or couples) that were getting food stamps while not working.  One friend would even joke about it when I ate with them saying, "you paid for it".  And another couple I knew was getting food stamps as well while working part time.  When they worked a second job and received a cut in benefits, they quit the second job so they could stay on the public dole for handouts.  And then there's the food pantry that gives out free food, no strings attached.  And then, there are many other social programs to help people out as well.  I've never met anyone starving yet.

[pecunia]

Uber drivers are not slaves.  There are no chains around their wrists.  This is insulting to actual slaves.

Slaves used to receive medical treatment as their owner had an investment in them.  There are many jobs today akin to Uber.  The booss man he say, "My way or the highway boy, you take it or leave it"

Capitalism at work.

[Wrenchturner]

Uber drivers are not slaves.  There are no chains around their wrists.  This is insulting to actual slaves.

Slaves used to receive medical treatment as their owner had an investment in them.  There are many jobs today akin to Uber.  The booss man he say, "My way or the highway boy, you take it or leave it"

Capitalism at work.

Slaves were forced, uber drivers are not.  And yes, contract work can be shitty(if you're not shrewd).

My question regarding price discovery goes unanswered; who determines the value of an unskilled worker?  Why should a customer pay more than what's required to get the service?

[SwordGuy]

Uber drivers are not slaves.  There are no chains around their wrists.  This is insulting to actual slaves.

Slaves used to receive medical treatment as their owner had an investment in them.  There are many jobs today akin to Uber.  The booss man he say, "My way or the highway boy, you take it or leave it"

Capitalism at work.

Slaves were forced, uber drivers are not.  And yes, contract work can be shitty(if you're not shrewd).

My question regarding price discovery goes unanswered; who determines the value of an unskilled worker?  Why should a customer pay more than what's required to get the service?

Because no one who works for a living should be in poverty.   That's why. 

Because people's lives are have more value than you getting a cheaper product.

People either grasp the concept of being a decent human being or idolize the theory of the market.

Being a decent human being and not exploiting other people ought to be sufficient reward, but if it's not, remember that bad things happen to good people, even smart people who understand MMM and have highly marketable skills.  More than one person has suddenly discovered that their current set of skills is no longer as marketable as they thought it was.

But if that's not adequate to convince, remember that when enough people get the shit end of the stick they get unruly.   Madame DeFarge might be remembering your words for posterity. And even if she isn't, at a certain point, the angry masses don't much give a damn which rich person they execute.  And remember, a major knitting website just banned knitting patterns that support Trump.  The knitters are getting ready.    The motto I'm starting to see is "Eat the rich."

Personally, I enjoy being rich.   Aside from being a decent person who wants everyone to be treated fairly, it's in my own self interest that people who choose to work for a living get enough wages.   

[Bernard]

Because no one who works for a living should be in poverty.   That's why. 

Because people's lives are have more value than you getting a cheaper product.

People either grasp the concept of being a decent human being or idolize the theory of the market.

Being a decent human being and not exploiting other people ought to be sufficient reward, but if it's not, remember that bad things happen to good people, even smart people who understand MMM and have highly marketable skills.  More than one person has suddenly discovered that their current set of skills is no longer as marketable as they thought it was.

But if that's not adequate to convince, remember that when enough people get the shit end of the stick they get unruly.   Madame DeFarge might be remembering your words for posterity. And even if she isn't, at a certain point, they angry masses don't much give a damn which rich person they execute.  And remember, a major knitting website just banned knitting patterns that support Trump.  The knitters are getting ready.    The motto I'm starting to see is "Eat the rich."

Personally, I enjoy being rich.   Aside from being a decent person who wants everyone to be treated fairly, it's in my own self interest that people who choose to work for a living get enough wages.

That sounds so wonderful. The problem is, when grandma has to pay the school boy who's helping her in the store $15 an hour, she may not be able to afford it. She'll have to close down. On the same token, bigger businesses that pay their entry level folks $10 an hour now may invest in automation if labor cost increase by 50%. The reason why we have businesses like Walmart is not the people's desire to get Chinese crap, but to get stuff as cheaply as possible. And when US businesses can't provide that, Asians and Africans will.

[Wrenchturner]

Because no one who works for a living should be in poverty.   That's why. 

Because people's lives are have more value than you getting a cheaper product.

People either grasp the concept of being a decent human being or idolize the theory of the market.

Being a decent human being and not exploiting other people ought to be sufficient reward, but if it's not, remember that bad things happen to good people, even smart people who understand MMM and have highly marketable skills.  More than one person has suddenly discovered that their current set of skills is no longer as marketable as they thought it was.

But if that's not adequate to convince, remember that when enough people get the shit end of the stick they get unruly.   Madame DeFarge might be remembering your words for posterity. And even if she isn't, at a certain point, they angry masses don't much give a damn which rich person they execute.  And remember, a major knitting website just banned knitting patterns that support Trump.  The knitters are getting ready.    The motto I'm starting to see is "Eat the rich."

Personally, I enjoy being rich.   Aside from being a decent person who wants everyone to be treated fairly, it's in my own self interest that people who choose to work for a living get enough wages.

Are all low wage workers "working for a living"?  Seems unlikely.  Alberta just reinstated a lower minimum youth wage, a move that I generally support and hasn't been received too badly. 

Are all low wage workers living in poverty solely due to the tyranny of their Boss?  Also seems unlikely. 

"Because people's lives are have more value than you getting a cheaper product."

I agree, which is why I haven't advocated for a reduction in labor laws, and why I generally support laws that even the playing field between employers and employees.  But if you are low skill, it might be the market putting downward pressure on your wage, not your employer.  Or maybe your industry is dying as you've described; I don't see how you can lay that at the feet of employers, unless they're profiteering or something.  And we do not cure dying markets by artificially propping them up.  The collateral damage there is incredible.

"being a decent human being" is far too non-specific and sentimental to function as a policy.  People that live in developed western countries don't have that many obstacles to a decent life.

There is moral hazard on the conservative end, namely--failing to accurately assess and make use of the value of the disenfranchised and the wrongfully maligned, however:

There is also moral hazard on the liberal end, namely--failing to properly incentivize hard work, commitment, innovation, the willingness and ability to improve one's own life by making sacrifices in the short term that benefit in the long term.

I used to be broke, unhappy, and aimless, but I have moved through an apprenticeship and now I am in demand, highly paid, and more comfortable.  This did not occur because anyone instructed me to change my career, or change my outlook, or improve my spending habits.  I learned this through the discomfort of being left behind, and having the willingness(and ability) to try something else.

I'm not convinced that the conservative moral hazard is a severe one in western countries at the moment.  I believe there are enough structures in place to prevent catastrophe for nearly all people that are hard-up.  Long term mental illness and drug addiction are excluded from that statement; those issues will never be cured.

[Bloop Bloop]

Uber drivers are not slaves.  There are no chains around their wrists.  This is insulting to actual slaves.

Slaves used to receive medical treatment as their owner had an investment in them.  There are many jobs today akin to Uber.  The booss man he say, "My way or the highway boy, you take it or leave it"

Capitalism at work.

Slaves were forced, uber drivers are not.  And yes, contract work can be shitty(if you're not shrewd).

My question regarding price discovery goes unanswered; who determines the value of an unskilled worker?  Why should a customer pay more than what's required to get the service?

Because no one who works for a living should be in poverty.   That's why. 

Because people's lives are have more value than you getting a cheaper product.

People either grasp the concept of being a decent human being or idolize the theory of the market.

Being a decent human being and not exploiting other people ought to be sufficient reward, but if it's not, remember that bad things happen to good people, even smart people who understand MMM and have highly marketable skills.  More than one person has suddenly discovered that their current set of skills is no longer as marketable as they thought it was.

But if that's not adequate to convince, remember that when enough people get the shit end of the stick they get unruly.   Madame DeFarge might be remembering your words for posterity. And even if she isn't, at a certain point, the angry masses don't much give a damn which rich person they execute.  And remember, a major knitting website just banned knitting patterns that support Trump.  The knitters are getting ready.    The motto I'm starting to see is "Eat the rich."

Personally, I enjoy being rich.   Aside from being a decent person who wants everyone to be treated fairly, it's in my own self interest that people who choose to work for a living get enough wages.

"No one who works for a living should be in poverty" - I would agree that no one who works full-time for a living should be in poverty in respect of himself or herself. But when you have situations of part-time work covering, say, a whole family - combined with a poverty line which takes into account relative as well as absolute needs - then your cushy sounding statement suddenly becomes a difficult one to unravel. Should 20 hours of week pay for a partner and children? Because then, we suddenly need to raise the minimum wage by a huge amount.

As for "eating the rich", no one has said that poor people should be enslaved or treated so badly that they rebel. Is there any evidence of this, anyway? As far as I can tell, in America, it's not the poor who have suffered, but the lower middle class that has become precarious. I suspect they're still a way away from building the guillotines again. Anyhow, as long as you live frugally and make no public statements of affiliation, they'll just go for your flashy neighbour instead when the zombie revolution comes.

[StarBright]

"No one who works for a living should be in poverty" - I would agree that no one who works full-time for a living should be in poverty in respect of himself or herself. But when you have situations of part-time work covering, say, a whole family - combined with a poverty line which takes into account relative as well as absolute needs - then your cushy sounding statement suddenly becomes a difficult one to unravel. Should 20 hours of week pay for a partner and children? Because then, we suddenly need to raise the minimum wage by a huge amount.

 . . .

I don't want to speak for all us liberal types - but when we say "no one who works for a living should be in poverty" I believe we all do generally mean a full 40 hour week.

And while I don't think most of us believe that one minimum wage 40 hour a week job should be the standard for a family of four, there is definitely a feeling that one full time white collar job should nicely support a small family (and an uneasiness that it rarely does anymore) - because lots of us have very clear memories of exactly that.

Regarding  part-time workers, I'm not sure if other countries deal with the same issues as the US when it comes to service sector positions, but there have been some pretty wide changes since the recession, and definitely since the ACA was passed. Due to the health care law many businesses (particularly in the service and retails sectors, but also academia, health-care, marketing/design,etc) do not offer full time jobs. They keep people below the threshold that would require them to offer health insurance.

Additionally, during the recession a lot of companies switched to a more on-call system for hours due to the the cost savings (especially in service and retail). So instead of being scheduled for 28 set hours in a week, An employee might actually be on call for 32 hours a week, but they might only get 23 of those hours if the store or restaurant wasn't busy - and they might not get notice that they shouldn't come in just be sent home after they show up, so there is the wasted time that could be spent at job B. A lot of lower wage workers never have a set schedule: it changes from week to week, or even day to day.  So you have people trying to piece together two jobs like this or turn to the gig economy to make up the difference- but it can be very hard to even know how much you might make in a given week.

Are there people out there that might only be working 20 hours a week because they don't want to work more than that and then try to game the system and get government benefits? Sure - there is always someone out there trying to game the system.

But, it is pretty well documented at this point that in the United States there are a ton of people trying to string together part time and contractor work to get to 40 hours a week. I hate that so many people seem willing to write off the plight of a lot of people, because a few people might be jerks.

The details of part-time and contracting work in the US might be common knowledge so I apologize if this is pointless info, but I did notice that a few people on this thread weren't listed as being in the US, and wanted to give some (more) context to the very US Specific Study.

[PDXTabs]

Yet, I personally knew of 2 non-working people (or couples) that were getting food stamps while not working.  One friend would even joke about it when I ate with them saying, "you paid for it".

How does what you observed in the past possibly matter for interpreting today's regulations?

Yes, sometimes during times of higher unemployment some states work with the USDA to temporarily waive the work requirement. I am not aware of any states that currently have a waiver, but if you can find one I'm happy to read about it. Further reading.

And then there's the food pantry that gives out free food, no strings attached.

Yes, the church down the road gave me some food when I was in college, not nearly enough to live on.

[Luz]

The US is the only country I can think of where poor ’people often own cars, TVs and cell phones.

There are many definitions of "poor" so we might be talking about different things, but TV and cell phones are fairly common fixtures around the world, regardless of income level. Cars, probably less so.

[Luz]

I'm always skeptical of the numbers these studies put out....*goes to look at actual numbers*....Yeeeeeahhh....

[looking at numbers from my hometown]
When a "survival" budget includes nearly $700/month on vehicle expenses (especially when they're not including loan/lease/major repairs) and almost $600/month for food....it is way overinflated.

Healthcare also is overinflated, assuming ACA/medicaid eligibility, unless they're assuming a serious chronic illness in the family.

Housing seemed within reason for a 2 bedroom apartment.

Childcare also seemed high....but we've never actually had to pay for childcare, so I tend to give this a pass.

Also....taxes? Are they seriously trying to count gas/sales/etc. taxes instead of budgeting them in the categories for the respective expenses they attach to? Or are they trying to argue that a "low-income" person will end up paying ~$400/month in income taxes? Either way seems ridiculous.


When I can more or less comfortably fit housing, food, childcare, healthcare, transportation, and a phone into a single-income budget for a family of four (2 parents, 2 kids) of <$2,000/month [or $3,200/month if you insist both adults work and pay cited rates for childcare]....you can bet that I'm going to cry foul when someone says $60k/yr is a "bare-minimum 'survival'".

There is a HUGE difference between "can't make ends meet because I'm not good at money management" and "can't make ends meet no matter how good I am with money." The first is due to ignorance, misinformation, lack of education, lack of self-control, poor planning, or even possibly malicious interference or stupidity; the second is actual poverty.  When we conflate the two, we do a major disservice to solving the root of each of those problems.

Not everyone can do a $200 a month food budget though - we all know that you are a rockstar! Seriously, I got my food and household budget down to $500 for a family of four and that takes major, major work and planning and time on my part. I probably could get mine down to about $100 a week if I tried really hard and simplified menus extensively.

I agree that my county numbers do seem a bit high for a family of 4 @70k - but not egregiously so for a family with two in daycare. I thought the number for an individual was appropriate @ 19k a year.

I had a hard time finding two bedroom apartments at the price it stated (4 for the whole county on zillow) and many of them were at least 20 minutes away from where most of the jobs are which inflates commute and gas costs.

I have never seen childcare as low as the given rate for an infant and a toddler (unless you qualify for subsidized care), but I also know that there is a childcare shortage in the county where I live.

I thought healthcare seemed high as well, but we have decentish insurance. And I know we have a paucity of providers in our county for the ACA exchange. Additionally, I think one of things with ALICE families is that many don't qualify for ACA subsidies. If your job offers any health insurance (even if it is quite expensive) you probably don't qualify.

Food was high-ish for sure.

Transportation seemed high as well. But if you live where the housing meets the price threshold then you are definitely commuting farther.

Taxes- we have SHITTY taxes here so I suspect the local taxes are a legit problem with my county. Our county has municipal taxes for the town in which you work and live with no reciprocity between the two, penalties for remote work, and no tax breaks based on income level. Most towns have additional school taxes as well. To your point about low income and taxes, part of the point of the study is that many ALICE families are not low income. They are median income so yes, they will definitely pay some taxes.

I would say that obviously some categories are going to come in higher because they have to use averages and medians for a large scale study. For every family that has no health problems, there is a family dealing with a chronic condition. There is no way to give a perfect accounting of everything but this does provide a snapshot of what lower middle and middle middle class people tend to deal with. These numbers don't include student loans or car payments - these are averages for "four walls".

I like how @DadJokes compared their budget to the ALICE numbers so I'll do the same :)

Category   ALICE   Our Budget         Notes
Housing          695           734                   Does not include property taxes, 1,154.19 w/ prop taxes
Childcare        1,787         1,110                  this is for a 5 year old, and summer care for 7 year old (ALICE numbers are for infant and toddler) - medium cost for the area on the daycare, cheapest I could find on the summer care.
Food               603          587                    This is our average so far for 2019, includes pet food
Transportation   697          50                    I work from home all year, DH only commutes about 9 months a year, we have a car that gets good mileage
Healthcare        800         762                   This was our 2018 average, but also doesn't include vitamins, tylenol, trips to minute clinic that weren't covered by our insurance etc (so add probably a couple hundred more annually)
Technology        75           60                   DH has a smart phone, I do not
Misc                 534           534
Taxes              678         1,365.75              This number doesn't include sales but is our fed, state, municipal income tax for multiple towns, and local school income tax. Does not include state to my remote work state because I didn't feel like looking it up :) Our numbers are definitely higher than average because we have a higher than average income.
Total               5,869      5,202.75        

So while we come in lower, we also save by having me be a full time worker with no commute, we are almost out of the daycare years (and don't pay for after school care because I work from home), and I could get food much lower if I really wanted. I'm hopeful that health insurance will be lower in 2019 - but we do deal with chronic health issues in our house. Note this number also doesn't include car insurance or property taxes.

I think one of the issues with these sorts of articles when it comes to the MMM forum is that we are unicorns. We are a very tiny percent of the population and we can budget and save and ninja our way to frugality. So yes, a percentage of these ALICE families can go find the unicorn childcare and housing, and cheap transpo and great health insurance etc and then do what we do.

But not everyone can and that is why these studies have to use averages and generalized numbers.

I think the seemingly high food calculation may have taken food access - what it costs to buy healthy food in low income neighborhoods -into account. Wealthy people can access healthy food at a reasonable price. For those living in low income areas, not so much - for a variety of supply-side reasons.

[nancyjnelson]

I hate that so many people seem willing to write off the plight of a lot of people, because a few people might be jerks.

This.

[Luz]

@SwordGuy Agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything you said, except kids are kids, so I really think the responsibility of instilling work ethic is more on the parents. The reality is that without outside influences, very few children are going to choose to work hard and study vs. play all day. And we can extoll the virtues of play based learning and team sports all we want, but at the end of the day the foundational academic skills that help you make and manage money when you grow up involves sitting down and focusing on stuff that aren't so "fun". Other cultures understand this, but a good percentage of Americans do not.

How much does school funding play into this dynamic? Local property taxes account for a large portion of public school funding, resulting in very different experiences for students depending on where they live. School funding and achievement are thought to be related in that funding helps attract great teachers and reduce class sizes (class sizes for some reason, makes a difference more so in the early years- though education is cumulative, so those early years affect all the others). Funding also affects everything from the curriculum to the facilities. I would say that there's a lot more to poverty than kids not learning to focus on something they don't find fun. Students in many other countries receive equal funding.

And no, the fact that many people on this thread personally knew fellow classmates that failed to study for exams does not mean that they can conclude ..... really anything. Anecdotes are not now nor will ever be scientific evidence.

[Luz]

To the statistics, I say, garbage in, garbage out. Too many hidden agendas on both "sides" of this debate. 
I think there is a general tendency toward entitlement, misplaced optimism, and arrogance in mmm threads such as these.  By most measures, we are incredibly wealthy and privileged folks here in these fora and some of us forget the ingrained inequality in a hyper-capitalist and competitive society.
I take a political economic perspective when I say that it is basically axiomatic that a capitalist society requires a permanent underclass.  Tell me how I'm wrong if you believe otherwise.  We cannot ALL be millionaires or winners.  Many of us are on a knife edge financially.  There must, at all times, be a surplus of labor in a capitalist system.  It follows that, if we do not take active measures to lift up this underclass, then they will of course be poorer and be blamed by those who have "made it" for society's ills.  Some of you even seem to think you did it all on your own and blame the poor for failing in the capitalist meat grinder, which is just horsepucky.  It is rugged individualism run amok, and, dare I say, a "I got mine, so eff you" mentality. 
In conclusion, you most certainly did not do it all on your own.  While capitalism has brought unparalleled wealth to many, it has created horror for most people on earth and created the very conditions for its own destruction.

-fixie now steps down from his soapbox

In social psychology, that tendency is called the self-serving bias: "individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors" and vice versa when it comes to others. It's a tendency that allows the individual to truly believe that their station in life is 100% due to work ethic and smarts while the position of those less fortunate is due to laziness. Maybe laziness plays a role in some people's lives. Maybe Mustacheans are a smart bunch. But come on! How could you turn a blind eye to the millions of other factors involved? Life is complex and so is wealth and poverty. Some of the sweeping comments on this thread are embarrassing.

[Luz]

They started with a conclusion, something along the lines of "Americans are poor, Americans can't make it, woe is me, blah blah blah."  Then they manipulated the numbers to fit their conclusion, running up costs far higher than I expect most on this board would consider reasonable.  Then pretending they tried their best to get good data.

$700/month for vehicle expenses?  Yikes!  Was that for a Tesla Model S or the Model X?  I'm a multimillionaire, and I spend a tiny fraction of that amount in an average month, without even trying very hard.

"Smart phones are necessary"  Really?  You might be able to claim cell phones are necessary, but SMART phones are NOT.   And their "lowest cost" was far more than I pay for my smart phone.  It would be even less with a flip phone.

And on and on.  You get the idea.  They are intentionally running up the base cost of living to prove their pre-arrived at conclusion, that Americans can't make it.

But we've all seen similar "reports" before.  And I'm sure we'll see them again.

I don't think it's fair to use your (multimillionaire) self as a comparison on how people who are poor should save money.
You're comparing apples to oranges here.
As a general rule, it's expensive to be poor. People who are poor don't have the means to go bulk shopping and the (non convenience) food they do have access to costs more than it does you or I. They pay more in fines, fees and interest, are likely unable to come up with first/last month rent, pay a larger percentage of their US income in taxes (at least in terms of percentage), pay more for car insurance and also in repairs. Heck, even gas is more expensive in low income neighborhoods. Public transportation is a time-suck and very poor quality in many US cities.  Their jobs are also less likely to provide benefits that allow them to miss work for a family emergency or to make an appointment during working hours. Sometimes their schedules are so variable (with mandatory overtime announced with 1 day notice), that getting another job is impossible.  Highly unlikely that they can take an unpaid internship to move forward in their career. They are also are more likely to live in areas of higher pollution and with less access to green space. Poor health is an outcome of poverty, but also a cause of it as well.  Major shortcomings in our criminal justice, education, and health care systems compound the problem.
All that to say that it's a complex issue and not just a matter of better budgeting skills.

[FIREstache]

Yes, the church down the road gave me some food when I was in college, not nearly enough to live on.

There are plenty of other handouts that people can live on and DO!  Charity wages are just another form of a handout.  A business should only have to pay what a job is worth and what someone is willing to work that job for.   Let the market set the pay.  It's the logical way.  It's fair to businesses and will keep businesses afloat employing people without resorting to higher prices that end up putting them out of businesses when their customers stop coming.

[FIREstache]

How much does school funding play into this dynamic? Local property taxes account for a large portion of public school funding, resulting in very different experiences for students depending on where they live.

Funding doesn't play much - throwing money at the problem has been shown not to fix the problem.  Some kids just aren't interested in learning or putting the effort in to do so.

I agree that property taxes are way too high, at least in my state where they are among the highest rate in the country.  More of the cost of education should come from the parents themselves rather than putting that burden on the rest of the community through higher property taxes.

[FIREstache]

They started with a conclusion, something along the lines of "Americans are poor, Americans can't make it, woe is me, blah blah blah."  Then they manipulated the numbers to fit their conclusion, running up costs far higher than I expect most on this board would consider reasonable.  Then pretending they tried their best to get good data.

$700/month for vehicle expenses?  Yikes!  Was that for a Tesla Model S or the Model X?  I'm a multimillionaire, and I spend a tiny fraction of that amount in an average month, without even trying very hard.

"Smart phones are necessary"  Really?  You might be able to claim cell phones are necessary, but SMART phones are NOT.   And their "lowest cost" was far more than I pay for my smart phone.  It would be even less with a flip phone.

And on and on.  You get the idea.  They are intentionally running up the base cost of living to prove their pre-arrived at conclusion, that Americans can't make it.

But we've all seen similar "reports" before.  And I'm sure we'll see them again.

So true.  My total vehicle cost including maintenance, insurance, and gas is closer to $150/mo for a 13 year old car.  And I drive it to work 5 day per week.

[GuitarStv]

Yes, the church down the road gave me some food when I was in college, not nearly enough to live on.

There are plenty of other handouts that people can live on and DO!  Charity wages are just another form of a handout.  A business should only have to pay what a job is worth and what someone is willing to work that job for.   Let the market set the pay.  It's the logical way.  It's fair to businesses and will keep businesses afloat employing people without resorting to higher prices that end up putting them out of businesses when their customers stop coming.

The market can't set the pay without occasionally setting it wrong and letting people starve.  As someone who has studied it, you know that this is how the market works - it will always swing from excess to scarcity.  The problem is that individual people aren't able to cope with this swing.  This is the reason that government programs and subsidies for low income exist . . . most human beings are uncomfortable watching other human beings suffer capriciously so we need to implement them.  But these social programs then prevent the market from working correctly, because the market is no longer free . . . it can rely on the government to subsidize it's workforce.

Logically then, what you're proposing cannot possibly work.

[pecunia]

Conversations like this remind me of a story told to me by my father years ago.  Dad is gone now, but maybe some of his wisdom lives on.

My dad was having a conversation with a banker.  The banker was commenting on what some one, Joe,  was being paid.  It could have been an auto mechanic or a janitor.  I don't remember.  Anyway, the banker ranted about these people being paid too much.  My dad was the quiet type.  He was a good listener.

When there was a pause in the rant, my dad asked how much the banker made.  The banker gave him a figure considerably more that whomever he was ranting about.

Then my dad asked the banker, "Do you think you are better than Joe?"

My dad told me the banker had no real answer to that one.  The banker was quiet after that question.

I think about that story in these times where there are these "lazy" people working three minimum wage jobs to get by.

[DadJokes]

I think about that story in these times where there are these "lazy" people working three minimum wage jobs to get by.

Who is working three minimum wage jobs? Seriously...

Just at a glance on Facebook Marketplace, I found 29 jobs paying $12-18/hour in my small town. I'm sure I could find plenty more on other sites.

[Paul der Krake]

Nobody is working 3 minimum wage jobs. That'd be 120 hours a week (over 17 hours per day), plus commute time. There just aren't enough hours in the day to function.

What people mean by "working 3 minimum wage jobs" is selling your labor to 3 different employers with wildly fluctuating hours for each.

[StarBright]

Three minimum wage jobs is because many minimum wage places only offer part time jobs. So there are people who work three part-time minimum wage jobs to try and get the equivalent of full time work.

I know several of the workers at my kids' daycare actually work at two days cares, because most of the positions are under 28 hours a week. So they work the morning shift at facility one and then drive to a different place to work afternoons and I know at least two who wait tables around town at night and on weekends - voila! Three low-wage jobs.

[Davnasty]

Conversations like this remind me of a story told to me by my father years ago.  Dad is gone now, but maybe some of his wisdom lives on.

My dad was having a conversation with a banker.  The banker was commenting on what some one, Joe,  was being paid.  It could have been an auto mechanic or a janitor.  I don't remember.  Anyway, the banker ranted about these people being paid too much.  My dad was the quiet type.  He was a good listener.

When there was a pause in the rant, my dad asked how much the banker made.  The banker gave him a figure considerably more that whomever he was ranting about.

Then my dad asked the banker, "Do you think you are better than Joe?"

My dad told me the banker had no real answer to that one.  The banker was quiet after that question.

I think about that story in these times where there are these "lazy" people working three minimum wage jobs to get by.

That's a good question to ask and something important for that banker to think about.

But I don't believe most of the arguments in this thread against some form of minimum or living wage are based on whether someone is "better" it's about the value they provide to the employer. If everyone was paid what they deserved based on their effort, that would be great, but how do we make that happen?

I'm pretty well in the middle of this debate and I agree with some points on both sides, but I think it hurts the conversation when being against artificially inflated wages is conflated with being uncaring or looking down on others. One can be highly sympathetic to the situation low income individuals deal with, and still think it's a bad idea to have a mandated minimum wage.

[GuitarStv]

But I don't believe most of the arguments in this thread against some form of minimum or living wage are based on whether someone is "better" it's about the value they provide to the employer.

I agree with you that the amount of money earned often has little to do with 'better' or even 'harder working'.

Wages can easily be shown to have little to do with the value they provide to the employer.  The average employer presides over a radically more efficient group of employees who provide better value than ever before in history.  This has not resulted in increased wages from business owners.

For a great number of jobs wages appear to be set based upon the lowest salary that an employee will accept that is legal to pay.

If everyone was paid what they deserved based on their effort, that would be great, but how do we make that happen?

I doubt that this is possible, sadly.  All we can do is ensure that there is a minimum level of protection for the people who make the least money at least have enough to survive.  There are many approaches to solving this problem, be it an increased minimum wage, a set of safety nets/social programs, UBI, or some sort of combination.

[PDXTabs]

Let the market set the pay.  It's the logical way.

The market can't set the pay without occasionally setting it wrong and letting people starve.

Furthermore, if you have an excess of labor, isn't the market correct in setting a starvation wage? After enough workers starve the wages will necessarily go back up, right? Of course, you might lose some customers in the process.*

* - and soldiers

[PDXTabs]

But, it is pretty well documented at this point that in the United States there are a ton of people trying to string together part time and contractor work to get to 40 hours a week. I hate that so many people seem willing to write off the plight of a lot of people, because a few people might be jerks.

The details of part-time and contracting work in the US might be common knowledge so I apologize if this is pointless info, but I did notice that a few people on this thread weren't listed as being in the US, and wanted to give some (more) context to the very US Specific Study.

It's not just the US. In the UK they call these jobs "zero hour contracts."

Also, I would point out that for so many people to have such precarious employment is a new phenomenon. In fact it is so new that that we didn't even coin a term for it until the 21st century. It's the Precariat.

[mm1970]

How much does school funding play into this dynamic? Local property taxes account for a large portion of public school funding, resulting in very different experiences for students depending on where they live.

Funding doesn't play much - throwing money at the problem has been shown not to fix the problem.  Some kids just aren't interested in learning or putting the effort in to do so.

I agree that property taxes are way too high, at least in my state where they are among the highest rate in the country.  More of the cost of education should come from the parents themselves rather than putting that burden on the rest of the community through higher property taxes.

Basically the strongest correlation with achievement and test scores in school is the wealth of the parents.  Poor kids don't learn as well, for a large variety of reasons.  These may include, but aren't limited to:
- being homeless
- living in a home with multiple families (no place to sleep/study)
- having parents who work multiple jobs and cannot help with homework
- having parents who do not speak English
- no books in the house
- being hungry
- being kicked out at 18, or made to take a job to help the family
- having no example of what education can do for you

So.  How is this related to school funding?  It's actually fairly well correlated when you consider how the poorest of the students do.  If you have a wealthy school district, where the average $ spent per student is $22k a year, then what you have is a student body that is predominantly wealthy.  The small percentage of poor students (say, the gardener's kid, the maid's kid) get a lot more help and attention because of the sheer amount of money spent per student.  Smaller class sizes.  More time spent on reading in the early years.

If you happen to be at a richer school in a more average district, this plays out in PTO donations.  Schools that can raise $500,000 a year can use that money for reading specialists, music teachers, and smaller class sizes, so that maybe the slightly higher % of poor students get more attention.

If you have a school where a large % are poor, the school simply isn't going to get the $ from the PTO that they'd need to decrease class sizes, or hire the # of reading specialists in order to get the poorer students, who are further behind, up to grade level.  The school will have to very carefully figure out how to allocate their budget to do the most with very little.

My experience in this area is as a parent in a poor-ish school, who has done fundraising for the PTO and has been on the school council for deciding how to spend district funds.  I've also downloaded demographic and test score data from about 20 of the local elementary schools to do a somewhat statistical analysis of achievement compared to % of students in poverty or % of students who are EL.  Turns out, the relationship was basically linear.  While the EO and middle class kids do fine across the  board, regardless of school - the EL and poor students do WORSE at the poorer schools.  The greater % of students who are poor, the worse the overall and sub-group test scores are.

[mm1970]

But, it is pretty well documented at this point that in the United States there are a ton of people trying to string together part time and contractor work to get to 40 hours a week. I hate that so many people seem willing to write off the plight of a lot of people, because a few people might be jerks.

The details of part-time and contracting work in the US might be common knowledge so I apologize if this is pointless info, but I did notice that a few people on this thread weren't listed as being in the US, and wanted to give some (more) context to the very US Specific Study.

It's not just the US. In the UK they call these jobs "zero hour contracts."

Also, I would point out that for so many people to have such precarious employment is a new phenomenon. In fact it is so new that that we didn't even coin a term for it until the 21st century. It's the Precariat.

Also, it's an example of how amazing automation is, and how amazing computers are.  Think of all the things that computers can do now, that they couldn't before!

Now coffee shops, grocery stores, fast food places (which, I'd like to point out - you could get a full time job at when I was a kid/ teen) - use software to tell them when they are going to have the most business and need more people to be working.  So they decrease total hours, change shifts around easily to save money!  That's awesome, right? Even google will tell you when these places are usually busy. Unless you actually want to make a living.  As someone who grew up rural and worked in a grocery store - I see nothing wrong with these jobs.  There's nothing shameful or embarrassing and they shouldn't be paying starvation wages.

[Luz]

How much does school funding play into this dynamic? Local property taxes account for a large portion of public school funding, resulting in very different experiences for students depending on where they live.

Funding doesn't play much - throwing money at the problem has been shown not to fix the problem.  Some kids just aren't interested in learning or putting the effort in to do so.

I agree that property taxes are way too high, at least in my state where they are among the highest rate in the country.  More of the cost of education should come from the parents themselves rather than putting that burden on the rest of the community through higher property taxes.

 In a policy brief by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the following conclusion was drawn on the effect of increased educational spending for children who are poor:

"The results reveal that increases in per-pupil spending, induced by court-mandated school finance reforms, led to significant increases in the likelihood of high school graduation and educational attainment for poor children, and thereby narrowed adult socioeconomic attainment differences between those raised in poor and affluent families. While there was no effect for children from non-poor families, for poor children a 20 percent increase in per-pupil spending each year for all 12 years of public school was associated with:

-A 23 percentage-point increase in high school completion rates
-Nearly a full additional year of completed education
-25 percent higher adult earnings
-52 percent higher annual family income
-A 20 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of poverty in adulthood

The magnitude of these effects are sufficiently large to eliminate between two-thirds of the gaps in these adult outcomes between those raised in poor families and those raised in non-poor families."

Eliminating 2/3rds of the gap of adult outcomes is a little more than "not much".
Education is a big deal when it comes to poverty. And educational spending exacerbates the fact that by the time children without means and those who are wealthier reach 18 (when they are effectively adults and therefore responsible for themselves), they are not on equal footing. Not even close.  And we're not just talking access to inessential activities like karate or horse back riding lessons. We're talking the basics.

[PDXTabs]

Also, it's an example of how amazing automation is, and how amazing computers are.  Think of all the things that computers can do now, that they couldn't before!

Now coffee shops, grocery stores, fast food places (which, I'd like to point out - you could get a full time job at when I was a kid/ teen) - use software to tell them when they are going to have the most business and need more people to be working.  So they decrease total hours, change shifts around easily to save money!  That's awesome, right? Even google will tell you when these places are usually busy. Unless you actually want to make a living.  As someone who grew up rural and worked in a grocery store - I see nothing wrong with these jobs.  There's nothing shameful or embarrassing and they shouldn't be paying starvation wages.

Personally, I would love to solve this with a UBI. Let the employers make their zero hour contracts and starvation wages, but give people enough (of the profits taken form taxes - or VAT) to let them walk away from awful jobs. Let them live without the constant anxiety of not getting enough hours. Because as it stands today, as far as I can tell, those employers are externalizing their costs onto society.

EDITed to add - and in the long term those businesses are going to have a lot less customers. But if there is one thing I've learned from 20 years in corporate America it is that corporations never plan for the future more than a handful of quarters ahead. We better optimize for profits this quarter or this calendar year so that I can get my bonus, what do I care about 15 years from now?

[pecunia]

- SNIP -

It's not just the US. In the UK they call these jobs "zero hour contracts."

Also, I would point out that for so many people to have such precarious employment is a new phenomenon. In fact it is so new that that we didn't even coin a term for it until the 21st century. It's the Precariat.

New?  I would think that for the land that gave the world those great Charles Dickens stories it would not be new but simply rebranded.

I once asked a human resource person about pay.  She said that attempts are made to keep the salary at just the level where you won't quit and nothing more.  I guess they follow some form of supply and demand.  Better to find a job in good times.

[PDXTabs]

It's not just the US. In the UK they call these jobs "zero hour contracts."

Also, I would point out that for so many people to have such precarious employment is a new phenomenon. In fact it is so new that that we didn't even coin a term for it until the 21st century. It's the Precariat.

New?  I would think that for the land that gave the world those great Charles Dickens stories it would not be new but simply rebranded.

I never said that people living precariously was new. I only said that the number of them (and the number is rising) is new.

But in a longer historical sense, people living as individuals in precarious situations is new. Historically humans have lived in groups of ~150 individuals that took care of each other. In some parts of the world you might have called it a clan, in others a tribe, in others your church. The Amish actually still live this way. So maybe the vikings come and kill everyone, or maybe there is a famine, but your neighbor or clan leader wouldn't turn their back on you unless you were being really outlandish.

I once asked a human resource person about pay.  She said that attempts are made to keep the salary at just the level where you won't quit and nothing more.  I guess they follow some form of supply and demand.  Better to find a job in good times.

But did she say that she might only call you in for 8 hours next week if she didn't like your questions?

[pecunia]

It's not just the US. In the UK they call these jobs "zero hour contracts."

Also, I would point out that for so many people to have such precarious employment is a new phenomenon. In fact it is so new that that we didn't even coin a term for it until the 21st century. It's the Precariat.

New?  I would think that for the land that gave the world those great Charles Dickens stories it would not be new but simply rebranded.

I never said that people living precariously was new. I only said that the number of them (and the number is rising) is new.

But in a longer historical sense, people living as individuals in precarious situations is new. Historically humans have lived in groups of ~150 individuals that took care of each other. In some parts of the world you might have called it a clan, in others a tribe, in others your church. The Amish actually still live this way. So maybe the vikings come and kill everyone, or maybe there is a famine, but your neighbor or clan leader wouldn't turn their back on you unless you were being really outlandish.

I once asked a human resource person about pay.  She said that attempts are made to keep the salary at just the level where you won't quit and nothing more.  I guess they follow some form of supply and demand.  Better to find a job in good times.

But did she say that she might only call you in for 8 hours next week if she didn't like your questions?

You are right about the group thing.  People banding together definitely can get better results than the lone figure.  I think electronics and people having to relocate for work have done a lot to destroy the old ways.

I've been quite lucky for many years in having full time employment.  I may go part time after I FIRE.

[Bloop Bloop]

Conversations like this remind me of a story told to me by my father years ago.  Dad is gone now, but maybe some of his wisdom lives on.

My dad was having a conversation with a banker.  The banker was commenting on what some one, Joe,  was being paid.  It could have been an auto mechanic or a janitor.  I don't remember.  Anyway, the banker ranted about these people being paid too much.  My dad was the quiet type.  He was a good listener.

When there was a pause in the rant, my dad asked how much the banker made.  The banker gave him a figure considerably more that whomever he was ranting about.

Then my dad asked the banker, "Do you think you are better than Joe?"

My dad told me the banker had no real answer to that one.  The banker was quiet after that question.

I think about that story in these times where there are these "lazy" people working three minimum wage jobs to get by.

The banker is not a better person. But he has skills Joe doesn't. He has qualifications Joe doesn't. He may very well work under a sort of professional stress, competitiveness or anxiety that Joe doesn't.

If you are going to suggest that the average banker, lawyer or doctor has an easier job than a janitor, then that would be a stretch, in my view.

Plus, it's not just the instantaneous stress of a given job. It's also the path required (schooling, university, professional competition, professional accreditation, student debt for all of the preceding) that sets the money the job pays.

[Imma]

Yes, the church down the road gave me some food when I was in college, not nearly enough to live on.

There are plenty of other handouts that people can live on and DO!  Charity wages are just another form of a handout.  A business should only have to pay what a job is worth and what someone is willing to work that job for.   Let the market set the pay.  It's the logical way.  It's fair to businesses and will keep businesses afloat employing people without resorting to higher prices that end up putting them out of businesses when their customers stop coming.

So, if we let the market set the pay, and it ends up being even lower than current minimum wage, that would be ok to you because that's how a free market works?

In my country (for clarity, not the US but I'm sure the situation is similar there) minimum wage is already so low that it's difficult from. The low wages cause a lot of other problems in society: from people getting into debts and causing businesses to lose money because they can't pay their bills, to the opportunity costs of lower income kids being a lot less likely to graduate school, to higher rates of juvenile crime and kids placed under the care of social services in very low income families. All in all the additional costs of employers paying very low wages is huge and these costs are all picked up by society/the tax payer, not by the individual employers. Basically those employers are sponsored by the government - they don't pick up the whole tab for their cheap labour. Is that a free market?

I believe that the market would be truly free when all companies and individuals pay the full costs for the damage that their actions do (also environmentally) but this would be a very radical reform.

[Imma]

You really think people on low wages don't put in effort?

Yes. After having worked a couple low-income jobs in high school, I can say that without a doubt. The amount of people calling in sick, showing up late, showing no interest in advancement, and putting in little to no effort was astounding.

Seriously have you ever set foot in any Megacorp at all?

I work for one. No, the 6-figure incomes don't call in sick a lot because their bonus payment depends on it. Instead they call in to say they work from home today or close the door to their office the entire day so nobody knows what they're really doing.

The blue collar workers that we employ, when we are not satisfied with their work we fire them. The white collar workers just get promoted to a different department or are at worst suspended with full pay for 6 months so they can find another job.

Yes, our blue collar workers sometimes don't show up in time or are rude, but on the other hand we time their bathroom breaks and make them work in the heat during summer and in the freezing cold during winter, we let the bosses yell at them. Often blue collar workers are treated with such contempt that it's no wonder they retaliate by breaking the rules. I'm not talking specifically about my current employer but my general experience from my own minimum wage jobs and how I now hear leadership talk about workers. No one has yelled at me anymore since I got my degree.

[letsdoit]

when there is no upward mobility, the only UM is imaginary (not my quote).  i.e., spending ALL of your $ on things that other ppl see.
'i'm not poor, i've got jordans!'

[Bucksandreds]

Reasonably, we have to change the system so that full time work can keep a family of four out of poverty. The easiest way to do that is to raise the EITC to make sure lower income FULL Time workers are not in poverty. That's $25,100 or about $12 per hour.  Childcare should be subsidized based off of income as well.  A family of 2 adults working full time would make $50,200 per year minimum.  I would raise corporate taxes to pay for it. In the end there will always be winners and losers. I just want to see the "losers" that are willing to work, to win a little more.

[BTDretire]

Uber drivers are not slaves.  There are no chains around their wrists.  This is insulting to actual slaves.

Slaves used to receive medical treatment as their owner had an investment in them.  There are many jobs today akin to Uber.  The booss man he say, "My way or the highway boy, you take it or leave it"

Capitalism at work.

Slaves were forced, uber drivers are not.  And yes, contract work can be shitty(if you're not shrewd).

My question regarding price discovery goes unanswered; who determines the value of an unskilled worker?

If I'm reading most of this thread correctly, the value of the unskilled worker has no bearing, what matters if that the unskilled has what is needed to live comfortably.

Why should a customer pay more than what's required to get the service?

In this world economy, that service will be shifted to the lowest cost, least regulated area, the question becomes moot.

There is moral hazard on the conservative end, namely--failing to accurately assess and make use of the value of the disenfranchised and the wrongfully maligned, however:

There is also moral hazard on the liberal end, namely--failing to properly incentivize hard work, commitment, innovation, the willingness and ability to improve one's own life by making sacrifices in the short term that benefit in the long term.

I used to be broke, unhappy, and aimless, but I have moved through an apprenticeship and now I am in demand, highly paid, and more comfortable.  This did not occur because anyone instructed me to change my career, or change my outlook, or improve my spending habits.  I learned this through the discomfort of being left behind, and having the willingness(and ability) to try something else.

I'm not convinced that the conservative moral hazard is a severe one in western countries at the moment.  I believe there are enough structures in place to prevent catastrophe for nearly all people that are hard-up.  Long term mental illness and drug addiction are excluded from that statement; those issues will never be cured.

 Yes, I believe there needs to be some discomfort, to drive humans to improve their conditions. No matter how tough it gets, it's nothing compared to early mans struggle to keep fed, housed and protected. And if they have no interest in working to improve, what are you to do? I have had a homeless person tell me, they don't want responsibilities. Which to me means, I don't want a home with insurance and taxes, a car with insurance and licenses, water, electric and garbage bills, a lawn to mow, and all the other things most of us handle. Heck, I don't want them either, but I also don't want to alternate flopping on someones couch each night, walking the streets to kill time, and wondering where my next meal is coming from.
  But the comfort I have is worth the discomfort of having all these responsibilities.
 If you want to help, the best place to look is with young mothers, where the father has left, often the mother instinct is there and she will amplify your help making it pay dividends.

[pecunia]

- SNIP -

 Yes, I believe there needs to be some discomfort, to drive humans to improve their conditions. No matter how tough it gets, it's nothing compared to early mans struggle to keep fed, housed and protected.

- SNIP -

There has to be the opportunity provided to improve said conditions.  Ever hear about people being trapped?  Not true?  There may be some with no ambition and wish no responsibilities, but I think they are certainly in the minority.

[DadJokes]

- SNIP -

 Yes, I believe there needs to be some discomfort, to drive humans to improve their conditions. No matter how tough it gets, it's nothing compared to early mans struggle to keep fed, housed and protected.

- SNIP -

There has to be the opportunity provided to improve said conditions.  Ever hear about people being trapped?  Not true?  There may be some with no ambition and wish no responsibilities, but I think they are certainly in the minority.

Is the rest of the country a third-world country or something? I see postings constantly for jobs that require nothing other than the ability to pass a drug test.

[FIREstache]

Yes, the church down the road gave me some food when I was in college, not nearly enough to live on.

There are plenty of other handouts that people can live on and DO!  Charity wages are just another form of a handout.  A business should only have to pay what a job is worth and what someone is willing to work that job for.   Let the market set the pay.  It's the logical way.  It's fair to businesses and will keep businesses afloat employing people without resorting to higher prices that end up putting them out of businesses when their customers stop coming.

So, if we let the market set the pay, and it ends up being even lower than current minimum wage, that would be ok to you because that's how a free market works?

In my country (for clarity, not the US but I'm sure the situation is similar there) minimum wage is already so low that it's difficult from.

Minimum wage has been increased way too high here in my state .... up to $15 in the coming years and then indexed to inflation.  It's crazy.  We're talking about jobs that aren't really worth even half that amount.  All it does is cause employers to move work somewhere else, lay off workers, and increase prices for the rest of us.  I just don't support charity wages dictated by government.  A reasonable minimum wage around $7/hr I'm not totally against since we are at least somewhere in the realm of what the pay should be at that rate.

[FIREstache]

Reasonably, we have to change the system so that full time work can keep a family of four out of poverty.

The last thing I want to see is a change in the system from capitalism to socialism.  We have more than enough social programs to help the poor.

The easiest way to do that is to raise the EITC to make sure lower income FULL Time workers are not in poverty. That's $25,100 or about $12 per hour.

EIC is already too high.  I know people that get more free money in EIC than many professionals earning good wages can save in a year after paying high taxes.  Then the EIC recipients go out on a big shopping spree.  The EIC is NOT a return of taxes paid, it's a free handout paid for by those of us who are actually paying high taxes.  I don't want to see it get any worse.

Childcare should be subsidized based off of income as well.

No, not at all.  If someone wants to have children, they need to pay for their own childcare, not expect me to pay for their kids.  I'm already subsidizing the cost of their children's education through high taxes including very high property taxes that mostly pay for the schools and little league parks.

While we are on the topic of giving away free stuff, I also oppose UBI (horrible idea), baby bonds, reparations, free college, wiped out college debt, and mandated paid family leave, along with the paid child care already mentioned.

As for assistance to poor people, I support food stamps, ACA subsidies, property tax relief, lowering healthcare costs (especially for older people who are on Medicare), increasing social security benefits, and restoring SS tax thresholds to the levels set in 1983 and adjusted for inflation.

[js82]

Yes, the church down the road gave me some food when I was in college, not nearly enough to live on.

There are plenty of other handouts that people can live on and DO!  Charity wages are just another form of a handout.  A business should only have to pay what a job is worth and what someone is willing to work that job for.   Let the market set the pay.  It's the logical way.  It's fair to businesses and will keep businesses afloat employing people without resorting to higher prices that end up putting them out of businesses when their customers stop coming.

So, if we let the market set the pay, and it ends up being even lower than current minimum wage, that would be ok to you because that's how a free market works?

In my country (for clarity, not the US but I'm sure the situation is similar there) minimum wage is already so low that it's difficult from.

Minimum wage has been increased way too high here in my state .... up to $15 in the coming years and then indexed to inflation.  It's crazy.  We're talking about jobs that aren't really worth even half that amount.  All it does is cause employers to move work somewhere else, lay off workers, and increase prices for the rest of us.  I just don't support charity wages dictated by government.  A reasonable minimum wage around $7/hr I'm not totally against since we are at least somewhere in the realm of what the pay should be at that rate.

In general, I think high minimum wages are a poor way to address inequality, for the reasons you listed.  But the issue still needs to be addressed through other economically viable means, such as a more progressive taxation system including negative rates on lower incomes(which has the net effect of boosting low wages).

The fundamental problem is this:

1. If wages for a given job aren't worth someone's time, no one will choose to do the job, even if it has value
2. If the minimum wage for a given job is more than the added value to an employer, the employer won't hire anyone for that job (or will outsource it, replace it with a robot, etc.)
3. This problem is going to get much, much worse over the next couple decades, as AI/automation gets smarter, cheaper, and more sophisticated - the number of jobs that a robot will do better, at a lower price is going to expand exponentially.

Humans won't be rendered useless, but across a much broader range of professions we'll be less cost-effective than robots.  For those that think inequality is a problem now, this is nothing compared to the social unrest that AI/automation-induced mass unemployment could cause.  But it doesn't necessarily have to occur, if we're thoughtful about how we approach policy.  It probably involves some kind of increased tax on capital(automation), used to pay for something that looks like the Earned Income Tax Credit on steroids.