What Life Is Like When You Make Less Than $15 an Hour

[GetItRight]

The simple fact is that instead of worrying about the minimum wage we should be worried about having jobs for able bodied adults that pay $15.

Then start hiring people for $15/hr, it's that simple. Start with just one person if need be, and go from there.

[Kris]

The lack of empathy in this thread makes me sad for Mustachians, and frankly a little embarrassed to call myself a member of a group with those posting these things.

I hope these people are able to improve their situations.

+1.

[mm1970]

Why are you pissing on these people, exactly?

Because because:
*I* did it, so anyone can do it.
"Work hard, work smart, save up"
Go to school, work nights, better yourself
Hustle hustle two jobs
Bootstraps
People are lazy/stupid if they are making minimum wage
etc. etc. etc.

But, at some point, the working poor really do have to consider how their own behavior keeps them from advancing.  What else can we tell them but to save, work hard (if they can find a job) get some skills, etc. ?

Well, someone else pointed this out already -

I grew up poor, and my parents were the working poor.  But they were married (until I was 15 anyway), and hard working, and were not on any type of drugs.  The house was paid for, and we had a large extended family, and my parents were smart (not educated, but smart).

So I am one of those success stories - college, grad school, engineering, blah blah.

How do you do that in other situations? 
What if you are a city poor, and your parents are on welfare, or your single mother is on welfare, and has a drug problem?
How do you dig yourself out of that when you literally have no one to look up to?  And no one to even send you care packages of ramen noodles when you are in college?

For many people in this situation, the family and friends actually DRAG THEM DOWN.  Not just "don't help", but are actual negative effects on them.  I'm sure you can imagine that.  I have a friend whose brother falls into this category.  Been arrested recently, doing illegal things with friends, but that's because they are the ONLY people who are there for him.  His own mother made fun of him when he was growing up for being a "stupid jock".
 
So if you really want to make it, and get out of this situation, you LITERALLY have to turn your back on your family (and friends).  So you have to do all that stuff I listed above, but on your own, completely.

How do you do that?  I mean, I've never had to do that.  My parents had no money, but my mom sent me care packages of ramen, soup, and mac and cheese.

[forummm]

One solution certainly is to raise the minimum wage.   It's lagged behind the inflation rate very badly and needs to be increased.    (And no, I don't care if the price of a Big Mac goes up by 18 cents)   

But dollars to donuts, if we raise the MW to $15 we'll be back here in a few years with a thread about how hard life is on less than $20 and hour.

Aggressive violence is never the solution. That should be enough to understand that minimum wage is unethical and downright wrong. If that isn't enough, just look at the facts. Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing the cost of labor, naturally reducing demand for labor. Employers make do with fewer employees, accelerate automation, etc. Notice how there seem to be fewer checkout registers open, more self checkout, automated ordering systems, self service kiosks, etc. This is all accelerated when the price of labor increases. Statistically those hurt the most by minimum wage are blacks and teens or young adults. Anyone advocating minimum wage or an increase in minimum wage is advocating harm specifically to blacks and young people, and more broadly to all entry level and lower skilled workers. Minimum wage is harmful to everyone, but harms the poor the most.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/walter-e-williams/2013/02/26/walter-e-williams-column-how-hiking-minimum-wage-hurts-teens-blac

If you look at the evidence with a neutral viewpoint there isn't really any evidence in practice that increasing the minimum wage (at current levels) hurts employment by any measurable degree. This seems to be completely opposed to the economic theory, and is hard to wrap your head around, but sometimes reality differs from theory. In jurisdictions where they've actually raised the minimum wage, even substantially, studies have shown little or no negative effect on employment or on economic growth. There are probably limits to this. If you raised it to $100 an hour, the same results may not apply. At $15, I can't say. But in certain HCOL areas, I think effects would be minimal or none.

[Syonyk]

In at least some of the areas, the wage increases didn't affect most of the workers theoretically involved. SeaTac comes to mind here - it didn't affect the airport workers.

[BlueHouse]

I notice the smartphone has replaced the large tv as weapon of choice to beat the less fortunate

+1.  The poor in my neighborhood all have smartphones and if you actually get close enough to them, you'll start to see that these are older models, many with broken screens, and it turns out they either bought it second or third or fourth-hand or had it "donated" because someone else didn't want it anymore.  I can't really call that charity when another party is getting useful life out of a product rather than sending it directly to a landfill.  Oh, and as for service, the people in my neighborhood tend to have phone-only service and wi-fi.  So they're generally not paying more than the republic wireless dumbphone users. 

I cannot believe the callousness of posts here so far.  I usually come to this forum because I read well reasoned arguments with different points of view, but this is just a bunch of haters.  More often than not, I'm the one that is so lacking in experience with people unlike myself that I have a hard time with empathy.  Not this time though!  It truly is different to experiment with living a poor lifestyle while you're in college than it is to be poor because of lack of opportunity or choices. 

[former player]

The other side of people not recognising/acknowledging the reality of poverty is that they quite possibly also don't recognise/acknowledge the unearned privilege in their own lives which has led to a different outcome.  It's to do with this idea that we live in a "meritocracy", and that therefore anyone who is doing well is doing so because they deserve it.  Partly they may deserve it, but it is highly likely that in some respects they have had privileges (stable parenting, access to average or better education, white skin, male sex, good health, a reasonably prosperous local economy, good role models, a certain amount of economic security, etc.) which others have not have, and have then been able to leverage those privileges into the creation of more privilege.

[Chris22]

The other side of people not recognising/acknowledging the reality of poverty is that they quite possibly also don't recognise/acknowledge the unearned privilege in their own lives which has led to a different outcome.  It's to do with this idea that we live in a "meritocracy", and that therefore anyone who is doing well is doing so because they deserve it.  Partly they may deserve it, but it is highly likely that in some respects they have had privileges (stable parenting, access to average or better education, white skin, male sex, good health, a reasonably prosperous local economy, good role models, a certain amount of economic security, etc.) which others have not have, and have then been able to leverage those privileges into the creation of more privilege.

The problem when you start talking priviledge, and quite likely the reason people like to down play it, is that it is often a prelude to trying to take something away from me as a result, be it in the form of taxes, afirmative action, etc.  I'll readily admit that I had the "priviledge" of two parents who stayed married, forced me to do well in school, encouraged me to attend college, help finance it, guided me to a job that would allow for at least a little monetary success, etc.  However, there was still a whole lot of hard work on my side.  And I don't feel like I owe anybody anything, aside from my parents, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude, and the responsibility to provide for and nurture my daughter in the way they provided for and nurtured me. 

But I do not owe anyone else anything, and when people start talking about my "priviledges" I start to feel the hand creeping towards my wallet. 

[forummm]

The other side of people not recognising/acknowledging the reality of poverty is that they quite possibly also don't recognise/acknowledge the unearned privilege in their own lives which has led to a different outcome.  It's to do with this idea that we live in a "meritocracy", and that therefore anyone who is doing well is doing so because they deserve it.  Partly they may deserve it, but it is highly likely that in some respects they have had privileges (stable parenting, access to average or better education, white skin, male sex, good health, a reasonably prosperous local economy, good role models, a certain amount of economic security, etc.) which others have not have, and have then been able to leverage those privileges into the creation of more privilege.

The problem when you start talking priviledge, and quite likely the reason people like to down play it, is that it is often a prelude to trying to take something away from me as a result, be it in the form of taxes, afirmative action, etc.  I'll readily admit that I had the "priviledge" of two parents who stayed married, forced me to do well in school, encouraged me to attend college, help finance it, guided me to a job that would allow for at least a little monetary success, etc.  However, there was still a whole lot of hard work on my side.  And I don't feel like I owe anybody anything, aside from my parents, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude, and the responsibility to provide for and nurture my daughter in the way they provided for and nurtured me. 

But I do not owe anyone else anything, and when people start talking about my "priviledges" I start to feel the hand creeping towards my wallet. 

I think you do owe people something. So do I. We have a society that costs something to run. What that society does, and who does it, is open for debate. As is who pays for that. But clearly you are better off because of a combination of your hard work, your parents' hard work, and a lot of structure and programs put in place by the government, other organizations, and other individuals. We all stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us. Some of us were born higher up than others. And some were kicked down the stairs a few flights after birth. What and how we deal with that is an important discussion. If we as a society are systematically cutting someone down, perhaps we should do something about that.

[Megma]

The lack of empathy in this thread makes me sad for Mustachians, and frankly a little embarrassed to call myself a member of a group with those posting these things.

I hope these people are able to improve their situations.

+1.

+2

Also I will point out that when businesses are able to pay their workers less than a living wage, more people end up on public assistance. Better for businesses to be forced to pay a little more, there's a big gap between the 7.25 minimum wage and $15 also.

Despite those of you saying you have lived on less, worked hard and became educated to improve you life, the cycle of poverty is real. Not everyone is able to just do a nursing program for 3 months and then suddenly they're not poor. Did they finish high school or drop out because mom was sick? Do they already have two jobs they need and can't take off for school? Are they somehow mental or physically disabled?

Be glad you are smart and your parents did not totally screw you up.

[Insanity]

"You are the average of the five people you hang around most with". It is a quote that I hear all the time on a podcast I listen to and I can't remember the originator.

But, most of the poor hang out with poor and negative mind sets.  Those that make it out have mentors or some stability.  NOBODY is successful on their own.

The only way to change it is from within the community.  How to change it within the community requires incentivizing the community to want to better itself and stop looking down upon itself. 

I would love to take my company and help that.  I am still trying to figure out how.  We live in an age where it is very easy for someone to make money to get out of that mindset and have some success.  How?  That is not an easy problem.

[MDM]

But I do not owe anyone else anything, and when people start talking about my "priviledges" I start to feel the hand creeping towards my wallet. 

I think you do owe people something.

Anyone care to define, with reasonable specificity, "something"?

There is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as the counterpoint to "do not owe anyone else anything". 

The easy answer is "somewhere in between", because that sounds so good - superficially.

[4alpacas]

"You are the average of the five people you hang around most with". It is a quote that I hear all the time on a podcast I listen to and I can't remember the originator.

Jim Rohn

http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rohn-youre-the-average-of-the-five-people-you-spend-the-most-time-with-2012-7

I had not heard that quote before, so I googled it.  The quote is making me rethink what I do in my spare time.  Thanks!

[former player]

The other side of people not recognising/acknowledging the reality of poverty is that they quite possibly also don't recognise/acknowledge the unearned privilege in their own lives which has led to a different outcome.  It's to do with this idea that we live in a "meritocracy", and that therefore anyone who is doing well is doing so because they deserve it.  Partly they may deserve it, but it is highly likely that in some respects they have had privileges (stable parenting, access to average or better education, white skin, male sex, good health, a reasonably prosperous local economy, good role models, a certain amount of economic security, etc.) which others have not have, and have then been able to leverage those privileges into the creation of more privilege.

The problem when you start talking priviledge, and quite likely the reason people like to down play it, is that it is often a prelude to trying to take something away from me as a result, be it in the form of taxes, afirmative action, etc.  I'll readily admit that I had the "priviledge" of two parents who stayed married, forced me to do well in school, encouraged me to attend college, help finance it, guided me to a job that would allow for at least a little monetary success, etc.  However, there was still a whole lot of hard work on my side.  And I don't feel like I owe anybody anything, aside from my parents, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude, and the responsibility to provide for and nurture my daughter in the way they provided for and nurtured me. 

But I do not owe anyone else anything, and when people start talking about my "priviledges" I start to feel the hand creeping towards my wallet.

I have no interest in taking your money.  What I am trying to take away are two ideas: that "people are poor because it's their own fault and if they would just [get a job/get a better job/get an education/get healthy/invest half their income] they wouldn't be poor any more" and that "I'm well off because of my own merit".  There is a tendency among many fortunate people to think the first is true while completely failing to recognise that the second is false. 

[southern granny]

My daughter makes less than$12 an hour.  She makes a house payment, pays insurance, food, and everything else it takes to survive.  Unfortunately, she doesn't have much left over for savings, but she does put enough money in a 401K to get the match.  She does this all on her own, with no government assistance of any kind.  She always buys presents for nieces and nephews for birthdays and Christmas.  She does not have cable, internet, and she doesn't spend money on cigarettes and lottery tickets and such nonsense.  I am proud of her, but I am still trying to convince her to go back to college and finish her degree so she can have a better future. 

[Syonyk]

Also I will point out that when businesses are able to pay their workers less than a living wage, more people end up on public assistance. Better for businesses to be forced to pay a little more, there's a big gap between the 7.25 minimum wage and $15 also.

What's better?  A business employing people at less than what you consider a minimum wage, or the business no longer existing because they cannot remain profitable while paying their workers twice as much?

[rtrnow]

Also I will point out that when businesses are able to pay their workers less than a living wage, more people end up on public assistance. Better for businesses to be forced to pay a little more, there's a big gap between the 7.25 minimum wage and $15 also.

What's better?  A business employing people at less than what you consider a minimum wage, or the business no longer existing because they cannot remain profitable while paying their workers twice as much?

You left out the other point that poster made. Businesses who pay such low wages produce employees who are on govt assistance. So, I would rather those businesses go under than pay crap and have joe taxpayer make up the difference. There are examples in every industry of businesses that pay a living wage and are still successful. In most all those cases they make up a lot of the costs with less turnover bc they have happier employees.

[Kris]

Also I will point out that when businesses are able to pay their workers less than a living wage, more people end up on public assistance. Better for businesses to be forced to pay a little more, there's a big gap between the 7.25 minimum wage and $15 also.

What's better?  A business employing people at less than what you consider a minimum wage, or the business no longer existing because they cannot remain profitable while paying their workers twice as much?

You left out the other point that poster made. Businesses who pay such low wages produce employees who are on govt assistance. So, I would rather those businesses go under than pay crap and have joe taxpayer make up the difference. There are examples in every industry of businesses that pay a living wage and are still successful. In most all those cases they make up a lot of the costs with less turnover bc they have happier employees.

Thank you. Why should I have to pay taxes that are essentially corporate welfare, because they don't want to pay a living wage?

[dsmexpat]

Financial education, stability and a lack of expensive ongoing expenses such as health issues or kids make minimum wage much more livable. I've worked minimum wage and I made it work, although I had all of the above. However until you can fix humans in general the best thing you can do is just give them a little more to live on.

[Insanity]

"You are the average of the five people you hang around most with". It is a quote that I hear all the time on a podcast I listen to and I can't remember the originator.

Jim Rohn

http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rohn-youre-the-average-of-the-five-people-you-spend-the-most-time-with-2012-7

I had not heard that quote before, so I googled it.  The quote is making me rethink what I do in my spare time.  Thanks!

Thanks!  Wasn't able to look it up at the time.

[Syonyk]

You left out the other point that poster made. Businesses who pay such low wages produce employees who are on govt assistance. So, I would rather those businesses go under than pay crap and have joe taxpayer make up the difference.

So it's better that someone should not have a job and be fully dependent on the government safety net than to have some job and be partially dependent on the government safety net?  Even though "joe taxpayer" is actually covering more of the bill in the first case?

//EDIT: Swapped my cases, corrected to joe taxpayer paying more in the first case with someone having no job at all.

[Chris22]

I think you do owe people something. So do I. We have a society that costs something to run.

And I, like most people here who are not retired, pay substantial taxes already.  I paid give or take $50k in just state and federal income taxes and property taxes last year.  And all I hear is "the 'rich' should pay more!"  They/we (since rich is anyone near $250k/yr these days) already pay the lion's share, so I'm sick of hearing I'm a freeloader who should be paying more.

If we as a society are systematically cutting someone down, perhaps we should do something about that.

The problem is that 'we' as a society are not cutting them down.  'We' are not having multiple kids out of wedlock, 'we' are not raising kids in single parent homes, 'we' are not dropping out of high school (often to have more kids), etc. 

[Terrestrial]

Keep in mind that for many low income folks, a single smartphone replaces several common services:

Home phone
Internet (access to things that are only, or most efficiently, handled online)
Entertainment (games/web/video)

The problem is equating 'common' with 'necessary'.  It sounds harsh but many of the '$15/hour for flipping burgers people don't get this' - most stuff is the luxury of the people who can afford it, not a necessary part of life.  Yes, if you are poor your life is generally going to be more inconvenient, you may have to take the bus instead of having a car, you may have to share an apartment (or even a room) with someone else, you may not get to go on vacation or eat at restaurants.  Well...my life is also more inconvenient than a billionaire's because i don't have a private helicopter to pick me up on demand, it doesn't mean i'm entitled to get one.  Everybody is reasonably entitled to base human needs like food, reasonable shelter, etc.  Everybody is not entitled to the same standard of living. 


Smart phones:
Phone - valid that most people reasonably need some version of a phone in this day and age.  If you're poor get a dirt cheap pre-paid flip phone.  Only use it for essential/emergencies.  You can probably make one of those drag out forever with minimal recurring expense if you are judicious with the use.  Dont need a smartphone with tons of minutes and data.

Internet - there's a place called the public library where this is magically available for free in most towns in America.  Having large amounts of internet use on hand at your fingertips is a luxury convenience for the people who can afford it...if you're poor, save the money, go to the library. 

Entertainment - this is again a luxury for people who can afford it, nobody is entitled to video games or movies as a base standard of living.  Books are also a form of entertainment...and are available for free...at the library...

[GetItRight]

Also I will point out that when businesses are able to pay their workers less than a living wage, more people end up on public assistance. Better for businesses to be forced to pay a little more, there's a big gap between the 7.25 minimum wage and $15 also.

What's better?  A business employing people at less than what you consider a minimum wage, or the business no longer existing because they cannot remain profitable while paying their workers twice as much?

You left out the other point that poster made. Businesses who pay such low wages produce employees who are on govt assistance. So, I would rather those businesses go under than pay crap and have joe taxpayer make up the difference. There are examples in every industry of businesses that pay a living wage and are still successful. In most all those cases they make up a lot of the costs with less turnover bc they have happier employees.

Thank you. Why should I have to pay taxes that are essentially corporate welfare, because they don't want to pay a living wage?

Steal less money (taxes) from both businesses and individuals and they can afford to pay more to lower level employees which will attract better employees and reduce turnover while still maintaining the same or greater profit margins and compensation for higher level employees. They could also hire more lower level employees which would be an increase in demand for labor, reducing unemployment and driving up wages. Why should businesses pay taxes that are essentially welfare? Why should anyone pay taxes that are welfare? Why subsidize poverty? Why subsidize big business? Why do any of those things that have violence and coercion at its core?

[dsmexpat]

To make society better. There is a fundamental difference in factors that you judge as important and those that others do. You seem to think that maximizing freedom and minimizing coercion is the ultimate ideal. Others would argue that in a society freedom must have limits and coercion is a sometimes necessary tool in order to improve the function of the society. The argument "but it imposes upon freedom" doesn't in any way concern the people who are upset by poverty.

The actions of others may appear nonsensical if judged by your own motives but it is likely that others simply have different priorities to you.

[EricL]

One solution certainly is to raise the minimum wage.   It's lagged behind the inflation rate very badly and needs to be increased.    (And no, I don't care if the price of a Big Mac goes up by 18 cents)   

But dollars to donuts, if we raise the MW to $15 we'll be back here in a few years with a thread about how hard life is on less than $20 and hour.

Aggressive violence is never the solution. That should be enough to understand that minimum wage is unethical and downright wrong. If that isn't enough, just look at the facts. Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing the cost of labor, naturally reducing demand for labor. Employers make do with fewer employees, accelerate automation, etc. Notice how there seem to be fewer checkout registers open, more self checkout, automated ordering systems, self service kiosks, etc. This is all accelerated when the price of labor increases. Statistically those hurt the most by minimum wage are blacks and teens or young adults. Anyone advocating minimum wage or an increase in minimum wage is advocating harm specifically to blacks and young people, and more broadly to all entry level and lower skilled workers. Minimum wage is harmful to everyone, but harms the poor the most.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/walter-e-williams/2013/02/26/walter-e-williams-column-how-hiking-minimum-wage-hurts-teens-blac

I'm sure this guy definitely doesn't agree with that assessment: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8

I definitely have mixed feelings about this thread.  The poor ARE stupid.  I know this because I was working poor - making $840 a month as a security guard full time (nights) and paying $550 a month of it in rent in 1990.  I remember incidences like a $20 a bicycle traffic ticket seemed the end of the world and walking down the street in my affluent hometown getting dirty looks from yuppies who thought I was homeless.  Part of the horror of it was weirdly existential.  If I'm so poor than I must somehow be less important.  That fed a LOT of dumbass money choices and some unjustified resentment toward financial "betters".  Things got better - but often because of in built advantages (being white-ish, literate, American), dumb luck (I started investing in an upward stock market) than actual savvy (not owning a car or dumping the investments in 2008), or hard work (quitting the guard job for a hotel night job for $1920 a month but rent going to $700 a month).   

So yeah, the working poor don't necessarily need all the judgment.  But at the same time I don't think coddling them too much is an answer either.  A good facepunch sometimes provokes necessary introspection.   But I do believe something should be done.  I moved back to my affluent hometown last year to find rents kept up with, food slightly went over, and university costs wildly exceeded, inflation.  Meanwhile, young people here are still earning, at the high end, what I was making at the hotel in 1995. 

[EAL]

This video from about 2:50: 

https://youtu.be/Z4glkcb7HHE?t=2m50s

This is Warren Buffet with a great philosophy about the benefits that some people have and others do not.  I think this is a great perspective so please watch it!

While there are people who truly need help because they cannot work or are born in a terribly impoverished company or area, many simply just want much more in exchange for less or no work and I'm certainly fine with them having to struggle. 

[Kris]

One solution certainly is to raise the minimum wage.   It's lagged behind the inflation rate very badly and needs to be increased.    (And no, I don't care if the price of a Big Mac goes up by 18 cents)   

But dollars to donuts, if we raise the MW to $15 we'll be back here in a few years with a thread about how hard life is on less than $20 and hour.

Aggressive violence is never the solution. That should be enough to understand that minimum wage is unethical and downright wrong. If that isn't enough, just look at the facts. Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing the cost of labor, naturally reducing demand for labor. Employers make do with fewer employees, accelerate automation, etc. Notice how there seem to be fewer checkout registers open, more self checkout, automated ordering systems, self service kiosks, etc. This is all accelerated when the price of labor increases. Statistically those hurt the most by minimum wage are blacks and teens or young adults. Anyone advocating minimum wage or an increase in minimum wage is advocating harm specifically to blacks and young people, and more broadly to all entry level and lower skilled workers. Minimum wage is harmful to everyone, but harms the poor the most.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/walter-e-williams/2013/02/26/walter-e-williams-column-how-hiking-minimum-wage-hurts-teens-blac

I'm sure this guy definitely doesn't agree with that assessment: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8

I definitely have mixed feelings about this thread.  The poor ARE stupid.  I know this because I was working poor - making $840 a month as a security guard full time (nights) and paying $550 a month of it in rent in 1990.  I remember incidences like a $20 a bicycle traffic ticket seemed the end of the world and walking down the street in my affluent hometown getting dirty looks from yuppies who thought I was homeless.  Part of the horror of it was weirdly existential.  If I'm so poor than I must somehow be less important.  That fed a LOT of dumbass money choices and some unjustified resentment toward financial "betters".  Things got better - but often because of in built advantages (being white-ish, literate, American), dumb luck (I started investing in an upward stock market) than actual savvy (not owning a car or dumping the investments in 2008), or hard work (quitting the guard job for a hotel night job for $1920 a month but rent going to $700 a month).   

So yeah, the working poor don't necessarily need all the judgment.  But at the same time I don't think coddling them too much is an answer either.  A good facepunch sometimes provokes necessary introspection.   But I do believe something should be done.  I moved back to my affluent hometown last year to find rents kept up with, food slightly went over, and university costs wildly exceeded, inflation.  Meanwhile, young people here are still earning, at the high end, what I was making at the hotel in 1995.

How about starting by offering an actual living wage, so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line?

And while we're at it, how about not creating a class of jobs that we self-righteously tell ourselves are "supposed" to be for high school kids, and were never meant to support an adult working full-time? Because we know that there are many adults working full-time in those jobs. 

[Kris]

One solution certainly is to raise the minimum wage.   It's lagged behind the inflation rate very badly and needs to be increased.    (And no, I don't care if the price of a Big Mac goes up by 18 cents)   

But dollars to donuts, if we raise the MW to $15 we'll be back here in a few years with a thread about how hard life is on less than $20 and hour.

Aggressive violence is never the solution. That should be enough to understand that minimum wage is unethical and downright wrong. If that isn't enough, just look at the facts. Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing the cost of labor, naturally reducing demand for labor. Employers make do with fewer employees, accelerate automation, etc. Notice how there seem to be fewer checkout registers open, more self checkout, automated ordering systems, self service kiosks, etc. This is all accelerated when the price of labor increases. Statistically those hurt the most by minimum wage are blacks and teens or young adults. Anyone advocating minimum wage or an increase in minimum wage is advocating harm specifically to blacks and young people, and more broadly to all entry level and lower skilled workers. Minimum wage is harmful to everyone, but harms the poor the most.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/walter-e-williams/2013/02/26/walter-e-williams-column-how-hiking-minimum-wage-hurts-teens-blac

I'm sure this guy definitely doesn't agree with that assessment: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8

I definitely have mixed feelings about this thread.  The poor ARE stupid.  I know this because I was working poor - making $840 a month as a security guard full time (nights) and paying $550 a month of it in rent in 1990.  I remember incidences like a $20 a bicycle traffic ticket seemed the end of the world and walking down the street in my affluent hometown getting dirty looks from yuppies who thought I was homeless.  Part of the horror of it was weirdly existential.  If I'm so poor than I must somehow be less important.  That fed a LOT of dumbass money choices and some unjustified resentment toward financial "betters".  Things got better - but often because of in built advantages (being white-ish, literate, American), dumb luck (I started investing in an upward stock market) than actual savvy (not owning a car or dumping the investments in 2008), or hard work (quitting the guard job for a hotel night job for $1920 a month but rent going to $700 a month).   

So yeah, the working poor don't necessarily need all the judgment.  But at the same time I don't think coddling them too much is an answer either.  A good facepunch sometimes provokes necessary introspection.   But I do believe something should be done.  I moved back to my affluent hometown last year to find rents kept up with, food slightly went over, and university costs wildly exceeded, inflation.  Meanwhile, young people here are still earning, at the high end, what I was making at the hotel in 1995.

How about starting by offering an actual living wage, so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line?

And while we're at it, how about not creating a class of jobs that we self-righteously tell ourselves are "supposed" to be for high school kids, and were never meant to support an adult working full-time? Because we know that there are many adults working full-time in those jobs. 

And then... Sure.  For those few people who still can't manage to make ends meet and survive like that... Hey, people can feel free to mock and deride them all they want.  But until then... I will never be able to stomach the heartless and self-serving arguments I hear from most people who are completely fine with corporate welfare but freak the hell out whenever someone suggests that maybe we ought to index the minimum wage to inflation.

ETA: for the record, I want to point out that I am not disagreeing with Eric's post, but rather using it as a pushing-off point.

[Syonyk]

How about starting by offering an actual living wage, so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line?

What are you defining as a "living wage"?

Being able to live with only one roommate while subsisting on rice & beans?  Being able to live alone?  Being able to live alone with a car, smart phone, cable, etc?  Being able to support a family with multiple kids on the income?

[Another Reader]

How about the adults in those jobs, which are paid at the market rate for their job, deciding this job is not what I want or need to support myself long term, so I am going to go to night school/join an apprenticeship program/start some online classes/whatever it takes to move up?  If they did this, in theory the pay would move up because the jobs could not be filled.  Or maybe all those high school and college kids that used to have these jobs could fill them again.

[arebelspy]

How about the adults in those jobs, which are paid at the market rate for their job, deciding this job is not what I want or need to support myself long term, so I am going to go to night school/join an apprenticeship program/start some online classes/whatever it takes to move up?  If they did this, in theory the pay would move up because the jobs could not be filled.  Or maybe all those high school and college kids that used to have these jobs could fill them again.

What jobs are they going to get?  Do we have a bunch of jobs sitting waiting for them?  Or will they get degrees and find there is no demand for their expertise?

[Kris]

How about starting by offering an actual living wage, so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line?

What are you defining as a "living wage"?

What part of "so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line" do you not understand?

[Another Reader]

Well, we could probably start with that list of $50,000 jobs that MMM described in his post... 

There are any number of one and two year technical programs through the community colleges here and scholarship money for low income folks.  Work days?  Go to night school.  For those that did not finish high school, their are multiple programs, both on-line and in classrooms, to finish that.  Or maybe you work two jobs and save up the money to get out of your situation.  Based on what I see, it's largely a lack of motivation, not a lack of opportunity that keeps people doing these jobs.  In some cases, there's a language barrier (that did not stop my Vietnamese neighbor back in the 80's) and in some cases there are children, usually fatherless.  That makes overcoming your circumstances more difficult, but there's a lot of assistance out there if you look for it.

[Syonyk]

What part of "so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line" do you not understand?

Which one?  Should minimum wage be dependent on family size?  And for small family sizes, minimum wage is already above the poverty line based on a full time job (2000 hrs/yr).

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm

2015 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Family size / Poverty Line / $/hr @ 2000 hrs/yr
1   $11,770     $5.88
2   15,930       $7.97
3   20,090       $10.05
4   24,250       $12.13
5   28,410       $14.21
6   32,570       $16.29
7   36,730       $18.37
8   40,890       $20.45

[Kris]

How about starting by offering an actual living wage, so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line?

What are you defining as a "living wage"?

What part of "so that someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line" do you not understand?

2015 Poverty Guidelines

Poverty line for a single person is $11,770.  $11,770 / 52 weeks / 40 hours = $5.66/hr.

Poverty line for two adults and two kids is $24,250.  $24,250 / 2 adults / 52 weeks / 40 hours = $5.83/hr.

That's pretty cruel to assume they will never miss a day of work, so let's go ahead and give them two weeks off each year.

Single: $11,770 / 50 weeks / 40 hours = $5.89/hr

Family of Four: $24,250 / 2 adults / 50 weeks / 40 hours = $6.06/hr

If your definition of a living wage is simply "someone working a full-time job is not below the poverty line" then we're already there.  Minimum wage of $7.25/hr even allows breathing room to pay into SS/Medicare and still not drop below the poverty line.  There would be little/no income taxes at those levels.  So, are you saying we don't need to raise minimum wage?

You're right, that is crazy.

Though your link doesn't work, at least on my iPad. It just brings up a blank page.

A federal minimum wage doesn't make much sense, given the variability. So, I guess I'll call for a re-computation of what it really takes to have a basic level of dignity.

[mm1970]

How about the adults in those jobs, which are paid at the market rate for their job, deciding this job is not what I want or need to support myself long term, so I am going to go to night school/join an apprenticeship program/start some online classes/whatever it takes to move up?  If they did this, in theory the pay would move up because the jobs could not be filled.  Or maybe all those high school and college kids that used to have these jobs could fill them again.

What jobs are they going to get?  Do we have a bunch of jobs sitting waiting for them?  Or will they get degrees and find there is no demand for their expertise?

+1

Because, we could literally have a country filled entirely with people with degrees in medicine, accounting, engineering, law, science, computers, etc. and ... someone is going to have to clean the toilets and flip the burgers!  So it would be the C engineering student and not the A engineering student.  Or it would be the accountant whose parents don't "know" anyone, not the accountant whose daddy works at the company.

SOMEBODY HAS TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH.  I guess I don't understand the people who say "go to school!  Better yourself!" when they NEVER address this issue!

It used to be that a college degree was your ticket.  Literally.  Few people got them, and if you did - you were made!  Now, it's like a high school diploma.  Many many jobs that never required a degree - well they do now.  And college is more expensive.

So Billy and Betty go to college, because their parents told them it was a ticket to a better life.  But their parents didn't understand much about the cost of it, or the usefulness of the degree, and now Billy and Betty are up to their eyeballs, working at jobs that 20 years ago didn't require a degree.

But that's not all!  John and Jane are in their 50's and "worked their way up!" in jobs that didn't require a degree.  But now they do!  John and Jane find themselves unemployed, and unable to get a job, because you can hire a 30-something with a degree for less than an experienced 50-something.

It used to be that fast food jobs were for "kids".  Just like bagging groceries (that was my HS job).  But now it seems we've expanded the jobs for "kids" - both in numbers and in types.  What % of jobs out there are service/ fast food/ retail - compared to 30 years ago?  What jobs are considered "easy" and "not worthy of more than minimum wage" compared to 30 years ago?

When I was a kid, in the dark ages of the 70's and the 80's, lots of people had manual labor jobs that were hard work - and nobody looked down on them for it.  You bagged groceries at the store, then you moved up to stocking shelves (where you could get benefits), and then you could move up to the deli or to be a cashier.  That was a solid job!  No, it wasn't living the high life.  But two parents working one job each could make it.

Well, nowadays, ask anyone, a grocery store job is easy!  It's for teenagers!  Those people don't deserve benefits like medical or dental -they should have gone to school!

What next?  What's the next "useless" job we are going to add to the list?  When did it become SHAMEFUL to work hard at a job?

[forummm]

Steal less money (taxes) ...

We voted for the people who set the tax rates. It's not stealing. It's how we decided by proxy they should be set.

If you think all taxes are stealing, I don't think I want to live in your ideal society. What does that look like? Somalia?

[Syonyk]

Though your link doesn't work, at least on my iPad. It just brings up a blank page.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm  Same link I posted.

A federal minimum wage doesn't make much sense, given the variability. So, I guess I'll call for a re-computation of what it really takes to have a basic level of dignity.

Great!  Now, since you've backed down from pounding on the existing poverty line (which, I agree, is absurd, since San Francisco is a bit pricier than rural Iowa), I repeat my earlier question to you.

Being able to live with only one roommate while subsisting on rice & beans?  Being able to live alone?  Being able to live alone with a car, smart phone, cable, etc?  Being able to support a family with multiple kids on the income?

[Kris]

Though your link doesn't work, at least on my iPad. It just brings up a blank page.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm  Same link I posted.

A federal minimum wage doesn't make much sense, given the variability. So, I guess I'll call for a re-computation of what it really takes to have a basic level of dignity.

Great!  Now, since you've backed down from pounding on the existing poverty line (which, I agree, is absurd, since San Francisco is a bit pricier than rural Iowa), I repeat my earlier question to you.

Being able to live with only one roommate while subsisting on rice & beans?  Being able to live alone?  Being able to live alone with a car, smart phone, cable, etc?  Being able to support a family with multiple kids on the income?

Well, I guess that's the conversation to have. Though I would be very interested in what your opinion is.

[WhoopWhoop]

Have you guys been unskilled and minimum wage recently? You been unskilled and unemployed (or underemployed) recently?

Renting a room in an apartment or house + utilities: ~600
Health insurance: ~$200
Most people's food budget: ~$200
Mimimum Montly Expense Total = $1000/mo

$8 /hr for 40 hours a week = $1280
(btw, a full time job IF YOU'RE LUCKY!)

Monthly Earnings  After taxes (20%?) = $1024/mo

Those are tight margins.

The moral of the story: Just because it was easy to survive on minimum wage in 1952 when you were a young pup doesn't mean it is now. And don't assume that if a young person has enough ambition he will be able to get a job. I'm ambitious as shit and had a math degree and was STILL unemployed for 2 years.

Why are you pissing on these people, exactly?

I've been thinking about my comment (above) for the last day or so.

It was the lack of empathy that bothered me.

People do have to pick themselves up from their bootstraps...

...but I have empathy for people in "the beginning stages." Remember what it was like to be young and sorting through thousands of pieces of advice on how to job search, how to live a good life, and all the nagging priorities of life?

• "You have to learn to cook so you don't spend too much on groceries!"
• "You have to learn the subtleties of office politics and reading body language, because people don't really say what they think!"
• 101 resume tips!

There are a million things they have to learn, and a million people screaming at them with contradicting advice.

While they're working through that process, they will make mistakes, look silly, not clean their bed, buy technology when they can barely afford anything...

I'm sure you made a TON of mistakes when you were new to the workforce, new to social media, etc, etc. Have basic empathy.

[ChrisLansing]

But the poor are told constantly that being poor is their fault in this culture.    So clearly that isn't the solution either, otherwise there would be less poor people.   When you tell people that they just need to buck up and work harder, most people just tend to get defensive.  It isn't rational, but it is true. 

Couching the message of personal responsibility in a better way might do more to sway people than just trying to shame them into being less poor.   This is a lot of the reason MMM appeals to me so much - it takes a thing that most people see as a negative, saving money, and turns it into a positive message - being more self-sufficient, finding true happiness etc...

Exactly.   The poor need to lean the basic messages that are presented here on this website.      This website helps the middle class by "reeducating them".    Let someone suggest that the poor could use some reeducating and that someone will be charged with being unsympathetic  (they may even be called an asshole)    The poor need genuine help that goes beyond expressions of sympathy.    One form of help is learning to make better decisions.    I might suggest that a bit of Stoicism might be helpful as well.   

[Syonyk]

Well, I guess that's the conversation to have. Though I would be very interested in what your opinion is.

Abolish minimum wage.  It's hostile to small businesses, and encouraging small, local businesses is one of the best ways to raise the general standard of living in an area we've found so far.  The money spent at local businesses goes back into the community instead of being sucked off to a distant location.

While I'm at it, I'd radically reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses, and generally make it as easy as possible to start up a small business in an area, and go so far as offering classes on how to do so.

I'd also revise various handout curves such that an individual is always better off making more money on their own (that's very much not true right now in many areas - there are welfare cliffs where if you make a bit more money, you end up with radically less).

If you start with the assumption that the government's job is to take care of everyone (I disagree with this assertion, but it's common enough that I'm willing to work within that framework for now), someone making $5/hr and gaining useful skills is less of a burden than the same person making $0 and fully reliant on the government for their well being.

[Kris]

Well, I guess that's the conversation to have. Though I would be very interested in what your opinion is.

Abolish minimum wage.  It's hostile to small businesses, and encouraging small, local businesses is one of the best ways to raise the general standard of living in an area we've found so far.  The money spent at local businesses goes back into the community instead of being sucked off to a distant location.

While I'm at it, I'd radically reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses, and generally make it as easy as possible to start up a small business in an area, and go so far as offering classes on how to do so.

I'd also revise various handout curves such that an individual is always better off making more money on their own (that's very much not true right now in many areas - there are welfare cliffs where if you make a bit more money, you end up with radically less).

If you start with the assumption that the government's job is to take care of everyone (I disagree with this assertion, but it's common enough that I'm willing to work within that framework for now), someone making $5/hr and gaining useful skills is less of a burden than the same person making $0 and fully reliant on the government for their well being.

Obviously you don't believe in a minimum wage. That was more than clear.  But my question is, what do you think an actual living wage would include?

[Bracken_Joy]

The lack of empathy in this thread makes me sad for Mustachians, and frankly a little embarrassed to call myself a member of a group with those posting these things.

I hope these people are able to improve their situations.

+1. Can we move this to "antimustachian wall of shame" instead of the welcome and general page?

[Syonyk]

But my question is, what do you think an actual living wage would include?

I think the term "living wage" is absurd as commonly used.  An employer is not obligated to pay someone more than the value that person provides to the employer.

As for a "living wage" in an area, it's so highly dependent on the area, the individual/family, the situation involved, that I don't feel it's reasonable to attempt to define it.

[firewalker]

It's too bad this thread turned out as it did. Maybe we ALL need to accept that an internet forum is a very limited method of expressing differences of opinion. Maybe those in disagreement could PM over the matter?

[Kris]

But my question is, what do you think an actual living wage would include?

I think the term "living wage" is absurd as commonly used.  An employer is not obligated to pay someone more than the value that person provides to the employer.

As for a "living wage" in an area, it's so highly dependent on the area, the individual/family, the situation involved, that I don't feel it's reasonable to attempt to define it.

Nice.  It's easy to be so so dismissive that you don't even care what a human being needs in order to live.

Not that I'm surprised.

[BEN_BANNED]

But my question is, what do you think an actual living wage would include?

I think the term "living wage" is absurd as commonly used.  An employer is not obligated to pay someone more than the value that person provides to the employer.

As for a "living wage" in an area, it's so highly dependent on the area, the individual/family, the situation involved, that I don't feel it's reasonable to attempt to define it.

Nice.  It's easy to be so so dismissive that you don't even care what a human being needs in order to live.

Not that I'm surprised.

You post is the definition of subjective.

Ask 10 people what they "need to live" and you'll get 10 different answers.

Do people need the latest IPhone, $200 Air Jordans, and spinner rims to in order to live?  The obvious answer  is an emphatic NO!

[ChrisLansing]

Why are you pissing on these people, exactly?

Because because:
*I* did it, so anyone can do it.
"Work hard, work smart, save up"
Go to school, work nights, better yourself
Hustle hustle two jobs
Bootstraps
People are lazy/stupid if they are making minimum wage
etc. etc. etc.

But, at some point, the working poor really do have to consider how their own behavior keeps them from advancing.  What else can we tell them but to save, work hard (if they can find a job) get some skills, etc. ?

Well, someone else pointed this out already -

I grew up poor, and my parents were the working poor.  But they were married (until I was 15 anyway), and hard working, and were not on any type of drugs.  The house was paid for, and we had a large extended family, and my parents were smart (not educated, but smart).

So I am one of those success stories - college, grad school, engineering, blah blah.

How do you do that in other situations? 
What if you are a city poor, and your parents are on welfare, or your single mother is on welfare, and has a drug problem?
How do you dig yourself out of that when you literally have no one to look up to?  And no one to even send you care packages of ramen noodles when you are in college?

For many people in this situation, the family and friends actually DRAG THEM DOWN.  Not just "don't help", but are actual negative effects on them.  I'm sure you can imagine that.  I have a friend whose brother falls into this category.  Been arrested recently, doing illegal things with friends, but that's because they are the ONLY people who are there for him.  His own mother made fun of him when he was growing up for being a "stupid jock".
 
So if you really want to make it, and get out of this situation, you LITERALLY have to turn your back on your family (and friends).  So you have to do all that stuff I listed above, but on your own, completely.

How do you do that? I mean, I've never had to do that.  My parents had no money, but my mom sent me care packages of ramen, soup, and mac and cheese.

We (actually, the poor, not most us posting here) are faced with the harsh reality that the solutions are both obvious and very difficult.    Yes, one really will have to turn away from family and friends who drag him down.   Yes, one really will have to overcome some obstacles.    Yes, there really will be psychic pain.   

The numbers are somewhat merciless.   If you can only get X (from any combo of work/welfare/assistance) then you'll have to learn to live on not more than X, and hopefully a bit less.   If you want to make more than X you'll have to better yourself with some skills/education/work ethic or something.   

How do you do that?     You do it or you don't.   

My thought (dare I suggest it's an empathetic thought?) is that giving the poor the mental tools to make better decisions is part of the solution.   

It's fine to understand (or think we understand) everything the poor are up against.    But it doesn't change the harsh reality that bad decisions are going to put them on a downward trajectory.   Good decisions, the opposite.     Reality is quite harsh.   

Education is not the whole answer.   Teaching the unemployed to save is probably largely a waste of time.   But there are poor people working who could greatly improve their situation -in the long run- with some better decisions, like saving, like foregoing unnecessary purchases, like cooking from scratch, etc.     

I'm all in favor of raising the social safety net, raising the minimum wage, publicly funding work training programs etc.    But we've been doing those things for years and though we have made real progress in mitigating poverty, we really have not tried to get the poor to change their basic paradigm.   The poor want to live and spend as if they are middle class, and they simply can't.