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

[Cassie]

Home internet is definitely more expensive in the states. 

[Paul der Krake]

Home internet is definitely more expensive in the states. 

Not for low-income households:
https://www.cabletv.com/blog/low-income-internet

[StarBright]

Home internet is definitely more expensive in the states. 

Not for low-income households:
https://www.cabletv.com/blog/low-income-internet

But this is generally about medium income households who do not qualify for subsidies.

[fixie]

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

[Paul der Krake]

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.

I'll go one step further: any society large enough requires an underclass. Whether it's driven by the various shades of capitalism we're familiar with, a tribal organization, or whatever. It boils down to a simple fact: we don't like doing things we don't have to, and constantly look for ways to get what we want for less. It's a very primal thing, and I don't think you can ever fully legislate your way around it.

[John Galt incarnate!]

It boils down to a simple fact: we don't like doing things we don't have to, and constantly look for ways to get what we want for less. It's a very primal thing, and I don't think you can ever fully legislate your way around it.

Hear, hear!

Rational agents always seek to maximize their satisfaction.

^

No  economic verity  is more fundamental than this one.

[SwordGuy]

It boils down to a simple fact: we don't like doing things we don't have to, and constantly look for ways to get what we want for less. It's a very primal thing, and I don't think you can ever fully legislate your way around it.

Hear, hear!

Rational agents always seek to maximize their satisfaction.

^

No  economic verity  is more fundamental than this one.

And people with piss-poor ideas of how to do that will maximize their satisfaction for short-term gains instead of long term gains.

Example:  A huge percentage of middle class American school children, since at least the 1960s, have decided to maximize their short-term satisfaction by consciously choosing NOT to do their schoolwork to their best ability.  They have consciously chosen not to learn basic arithmetic, basic grammar, basic writing skills, basic reading skills, history, science, literature, etc.
The fact that this is a really effective way at locking them into piss-poor jobs with little opportunity to advancement is a long term problem they don't care about until later.  And while they shirk the work of preparing them for the future (paid for with copious amounts of taxes gleaned from hard working folk), they simultaneously practice being lazy and irresponsible.

And then they will blame it on "the system" instead of their own choices.


Don't get me wrong.  Capitalism has serious structural issues that need to be mitigated to an acceptable level via legislation.  I completely get that.   But every other large scale system has serious structural issues that need to be mitigated via legislation in some manner.

One of the really important things to keep in mind in this discussion is that capitalism moves the bar of what is acceptable towards "more and better stuff".     The working poor a few hundred years ago had no concept that they were entitled to a home of their own.  They rented rooms in in cheap establishments and shared the rest.  Boarding house or flop house come to mind.   The kind of 2 bedroom apartment that activists now deem essential for civilized living is way better than what many in the middle class aspired to when my mother was born.   Indoor toilets?  Woo hoo!   Running water?  Woo hoo!   Air conditioning?   Woo hoo!    A car for each adult?   Woo hoo!


Do we need better labor protections for workers?  Hell yes.

Do we need affordable health care for everyone?  Hell yes.

Do we need to reduce the ability of the ultra-rich and corporations to influence legislators with money?  Hell yes.

Do we need to structure our tariffs so that countries that have piss-poor environmental protections or piss-poor labor protections or piss-poor civil rights suffer a big penalty to get their goods in our country for sale?  Hell yes.  And conversely, if they do better than we do on those topics then our industries need to pay a big tariff to sell competing items.   That way, instead of countries rushing to the bottom to attract industry, they'll rush to improve the ecosystem, worker protections and civil rights.

But capitalism, with its structural issues properly mitigated, is the goose that lays golden eggs.   It would be foolish to kill it.

[cloudsail]

@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.

[FIREstache]

Other cultures understand this, but a good percentage of Americans do not.

All other cultures?  Some, or what?  And what do you consider a good percentage?

[Jenny Wren]

Did someone just seriously blame children...CHILDREN ... for the failings of the American education system?!?

I`m done.

[SwordGuy]

Did someone just seriously blame children...CHILDREN ... for the failings of the American education system?!?

I`m done.

Well, when I was a kid there were a veritable host of my fellow students who (a) had zero interest in learning, (b) put forth the bare minimum effort (if that), and (c) took pride in not learning anything.

Blame who you want.

But teachers are there to teach students, not warm bodies who refuse to learn.  So I think the kids have plenty of blame that should head their way.   Ditto for their parents for not making the kids learn despite that.   I see the same attitudes today.

There's plenty wrong with the educational system today, but piss-poor attitudes among American students and lazy/uncaring parents predate those problems by decades (at least).

[GuitarStv]

Raising a kid takes a village.  You don't get a kid who takes pride in not learning with a stable supportive family at home, hard working and concerned teachers, and school administrators/legislators who are doing their best to help teachers.

Kids absorb their attitudes and approach to most of life from the example set by the people around them.

[FIREstache]

Did someone just seriously blame children...CHILDREN ... for the failings of the American education system?!?

I`m done.

Yes, it's high time more responsibility be put on the kids to put in a little effort instead of just blaming parents and teachers.  We probably need to end summer vacation and keep kids in school longer also.

[SwordGuy]

Raising a kid takes a village.  You don't get a kid who takes pride in not learning with a stable supportive family at home, hard working and concerned teachers, and school administrators/legislators who are doing their best to help teachers.

Kids absorb their attitudes and approach to most of life from the example set by the people around them.

There are lots of parents who provide a stable environment and support their children not trying very hard in school.   Some of them are passive enablers, some are active enablers.   Talk to some teachers or professors about the active enablers, who try to force teachers to give grades to kids who didn't do the work.

And sometimes kids are just stubborn and manage to put their own head up their own ass despite the best efforts of their parents, siblings, teachers and administrators.   

In American society, if you want to know what's valued, follow the money.   Highest paid government workers in most states are sports coaches.    Massive amounts of school money are put into sports stadiums and football/baseball and/or basketball.   That happens because that's what a host of parents want.   

[GuitarStv]

Putting baseball over education is a pretty clear failure of all three groups identified.  Parents for not valuing education and demanding athletics, teachers for emphasizing sports over learning, and administrators for spending money on the wrong things.

I mean, you could maybe make the argument that by high school some kids are simply set into patterns of giving up and not learning . . . but elementary school students naturally tend to follow the examples they see around them.  That's just how the developing human brain is wired.

[PDXTabs]

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

You haven't been to many developed countries if you think that poor folks are getting by without cell phones in 2019. I would assume that most of them didn't pay for the TVs (I never have, but I've owned plenty).

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

[FIREstache]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

[cloudsail]

Other cultures understand this, but a good percentage of Americans do not.

All other cultures?  Some, or what?  And what do you consider a good percentage?

Of course not all other cultures, and the cultures that do prioritize education have other issues with over-prioritizing, but in my experience there is just so much wrong with the North American system. Starting with it's "uncool" to be a "nerd" and "cool" to be a "jock". Until I transferred to a gifted program, no school I was in had an environment where it was considered "cool" to get good grades. What motivation does a kid have to work hard when it actually makes them stigmatized in the eyes of their peers? I actually saw the effect on myself, in that I didn't work particularly hard either, I just happened to have good genes and got good grades despite slacking off all the time. My teacher in sixth grade was actually really dedicated and felt really frustrated with the way I was wasting my time and pissing away my potential.

[Imma]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

Well I do think employers who don't pay their employees a high enough wage that they can reasonably afford a car, do have the responsability to make sure working times/location match public transport available in that area or offer some other kind of help. In my European country the transit system works perfectly in a lot of places, but barely exists in the area where my hometown is . But there are ways employers can take their responsability: for example a farm I know of picks up 6 of their workers from the train station in a small bus every morning so they can go to work.

There are quite a lot of companies around here that pay minimum wage and require owning a car. A very small old car costs about 1/4 of minimum wage over here, bigger cars (for those who need to carry around stuff for work) are even more expensive. What those employers are basically doing is offering badly paid jobs to desperate people who will most likely get in debt because of it.

My grandma had a home help when she was ill over the winter. All these helps, who clean and do small medical tasks like washing and dressing a person and giving them their medication, get paid around minimum wage. They are on a tight schedule and the only way they can make that schedule is by driving from one home to another, there's not enough time to walk, bike or take a bus. They don't even get paid fulltime but for example are scheduled for 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours at night. These ladies have no other options because all busunesses in their field work like this and they don't have money to go back to school and train in a different field. They need to own a car and drive quite a lot which means they are left with a very small amount of money for rent and food. I think this way of doing business is bordering on criminal.

[SwordGuy]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

Well I do think employers who don't pay their employees a high enough wage that they can reasonably afford a car, do have the responsability to make sure working times/location match public transport available in that area or offer some other kind of help. In my European country the transit system works perfectly in a lot of places, but barely exists in the area where my hometown is . But there are ways employers can take their responsability: for example a farm I know of picks up 6 of their workers from the train station in a small bus every morning so they can go to work.

There are quite a lot of companies around here that pay minimum wage and require owning a car. A very small old car costs about 1/4 of minimum wage over here, bigger cars (for those who need to carry around stuff for work) are even more expensive. What those employers are basically doing is offering badly paid jobs to desperate people who will most likely get in debt because of it.

My grandma had a home help when she was ill over the winter. All these helps, who clean and do small medical tasks like washing and dressing a person and giving them their medication, get paid around minimum wage. They are on a tight schedule and the only way they can make that schedule is by driving from one home to another, there's not enough time to walk, bike or take a bus. They don't even get paid fulltime but for example are scheduled for 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours at night. These ladies have no other options because all busunesses in their field work like this and they don't have money to go back to school and train in a different field. They need to own a car and drive quite a lot which means they are left with a very small amount of money for rent and food. I think this way of doing business is bordering on criminal.

I agree that it should be criminal, but sadly it's not.  If someone works for a living they should be paid a living.

[PDXTabs]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

I've only traveled in Canada*, Hong Kong, Singapore, The Netherlands, and the UK as an adult. All of them had remarkably better public transit than the US.

* - but large swaths of Canada actually suck at public transit - just not the parts that I've been to.

[StarBright]

I just wanted to correct one small misconception that I have seen several times on this thread. There have been multiple people who have commented about what "low income" people should/shouldn't be doing, be able to do, etc.

But the ALICE study exists specifically to illuminate the situations of middle income households - not necessarily low income. So a lot of these families are not eligible for most subsidies: cell phones, insurance subsidies, childcare subsidies, free/discounted school lunches, EITC, etc.

The median household income for my county is 12k less than what the ALICE suggests a family of four needs. Let's say the ALICE budget matched the median income: the budget still does not include things like school loan payments, car loan payments, medical emergencies, car repairs, home repairs, clothing, school fees, etc. That is a lot of people who need everything to go right every month to make ends meet.

[cloudsail]

I just wanted to correct one small misconception that I have seen several times on this thread. There have been multiple people who have commented about what "low income" people should/shouldn't be doing, be able to do, etc.

But the ALICE study exists specifically to illuminate the situations of middle income households - not necessarily low income. So a lot of these families are not eligible for most subsidies: cell phones, insurance subsidies, childcare subsidies, free/discounted school lunches, EITC, etc.

The median household income for my county is 12k less than what the ALICE suggests a family of four needs. Let's say the ALICE budget matched the median income: the budget still does not include things like school loan payments, car loan payments, medical emergencies, car repairs, home repairs, clothing, school fees, etc. That is a lot of people who need everything to go right every month to make ends meet.

Well, there's also a lot of discussion about how people with low incomes have to pay more for certain things so you really can't have it both ways.....

Like the 83k that ALICE quoted for where I live. You're telling me that an employer who pays around 6 figures isn't going to offer healthcare benefits? Unless they're quoting pre-paycheck deductions for healthcare and taxes? But that doesn't make sense because they are using ACA marketplace numbers. And there is actually a pretty high Misc category for those other stuff like clothes.

People making median income have access to many things that low income people do not.

[StarBright]

I just wanted to correct one small misconception that I have seen several times on this thread. There have been multiple people who have commented about what "low income" people should/shouldn't be doing, be able to do, etc.

But the ALICE study exists specifically to illuminate the situations of middle income households - not necessarily low income. So a lot of these families are not eligible for most subsidies: cell phones, insurance subsidies, childcare subsidies, free/discounted school lunches, EITC, etc.

The median household income for my county is 12k less than what the ALICE suggests a family of four needs. Let's say the ALICE budget matched the median income: the budget still does not include things like school loan payments, car loan payments, medical emergencies, car repairs, home repairs, clothing, school fees, etc. That is a lot of people who need everything to go right every month to make ends meet.

Well, there's also a lot of discussion about how people with low incomes have to pay more for certain things so you really can't have it both ways.....

Like the 83k that ALICE quoted for where I live. You're telling me that an employer who pays around 6 figures isn't going to offer healthcare benefits? Unless they're quoting pre-paycheck deductions for healthcare and taxes? But that doesn't make sense because they are using ACA marketplace numbers. And there is actually a pretty high Misc category for those other stuff like clothes.

People making median income have access to many things that low income people do not.

They are not using ACA marketplace numbers. From the methodology page:

Health Care:
The health care budget includes the nominal out - of pocket spending on health insurance,medical services, prescription drugs, and medical supplies using the average annual health expenditure reported in the CES. The cost is based on region and household income. Costs are adjusted for household size (divided by CES household size except for single-adult households, which are divided by two).

(If I am wrong and the CES actually uses onnly marketplace info, please let me know! - but I found no indication of that. Also CES numbers seem to pre-date the ACA by 30 years or so.)

[FIREstache]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

Well I do think employers who don't pay their employees a high enough wage that they can reasonably afford a car, do have the responsability to make sure working times/location match public transport available in that area or offer some other kind of help.

I don't see that as the responsibility of the employer.  They should pay whatever the market drives it to be.  I don't believe wages should be artificially inflated at any government level, so I'm against any increases in minimum wage.

[SwordGuy]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

Well I do think employers who don't pay their employees a high enough wage that they can reasonably afford a car, do have the responsability to make sure working times/location match public transport available in that area or offer some other kind of help.

I don't see that as the responsibility of the employer.  They should pay whatever the market drives it to be.  I don't believe wages should be artificially inflated at any government level, so I'm against any increases in minimum wage.

I believe that employers have no right to run a business that depends upon working people at poverty wages. 

[FIREstache]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

Well I do think employers who don't pay their employees a high enough wage that they can reasonably afford a car, do have the responsability to make sure working times/location match public transport available in that area or offer some other kind of help.

I don't see that as the responsibility of the employer.  They should pay whatever the market drives it to be.  I don't believe wages should be artificially inflated at any government level, so I'm against any increases in minimum wage.

I believe that employers have no right to run a business that depends upon working people at poverty wages.

I don't think it has anything to do with rights.  If no one wants to work the job for the agreed upon wages, then the market will demand an increase in the wage.  If people are accepting the job offer at current said pay rate, then they must consider it acceptable.  If they want to earn more, they need to put in the effort like so many of us have to get ahead rather than expecting "charity" wages from a business paying more than a job is worth.

[SwordGuy]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

Well I do think employers who don't pay their employees a high enough wage that they can reasonably afford a car, do have the responsability to make sure working times/location match public transport available in that area or offer some other kind of help.

I don't see that as the responsibility of the employer.  They should pay whatever the market drives it to be.  I don't believe wages should be artificially inflated at any government level, so I'm against any increases in minimum wage.

I believe that employers have no right to run a business that depends upon working people at poverty wages.

I don't think it has anything to do with rights.  If no one wants to work the job for the agreed upon wages, then the market will demand an increase in the wage.  If people are accepting the job offer at current said pay rate, then they must consider it acceptable.  If they want to earn more, they need to put in the effort like so many of us have to get ahead rather than expecting "charity" wages from a business paying more than a job is worth.

That presumes that both parties have equal ability to choose not to enter into the agreement.    You and I know that is not true.   Poor people take the scraps they can get because they need to eat and have no savings because they are poor.   People in desparate need of a job or an inexpensive family support network can't easily move to where jobs are more plentiful.

So, please, no more Libertarian wet dreams in public.   

[PDXTabs]

If no one wants to work the job for the agreed upon wages, then the market will demand an increase in the wage.  If people are accepting the job offer at current said pay rate, then they must consider it acceptable.  If they want to earn more, they need to put in the effort like so many of us have to get ahead rather than expecting "charity" wages from a business paying more than a job is worth.

You really think that if a human being has the choice between working and starving they'll choose starving?

Chris Arnade recently documented people in Selma, Alabama working for $20 a day doing grueling work because it was that or starve. Some quick math tells me that they are living on ~$5000 per year, assuming five days a week of work with no vacations. It's a good read, I'm sure that your local library can get it. Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America.

[Imma]

You do have a good point that the US is the only developed country that I have ever been to that expects the poor to own cars in order to get to work. We should really do something about that.

I know people that don't own cars and have not problems getting to work.  But it is the responsibility of the employee to get to work, not mine.

Well I do think employers who don't pay their employees a high enough wage that they can reasonably afford a car, do have the responsability to make sure working times/location match public transport available in that area or offer some other kind of help.

I don't see that as the responsibility of the employer.  They should pay whatever the market drives it to be.  I don't believe wages should be artificially inflated at any government level, so I'm against any increases in minimum wage.

I believe that employers have no right to run a business that depends upon working people at poverty wages.

I don't think it has anything to do with rights.  If no one wants to work the job for the agreed upon wages, then the market will demand an increase in the wage.  If people are accepting the job offer at current said pay rate, then they must consider it acceptable.  If they want to earn more, they need to put in the effort like so many of us have to get ahead rather than expecting "charity" wages from a business paying more than a job is worth.

You really think people on low wages don't put in effort? Honestly I think many of them work much harder than I do. I happen to be clever enough to get a degree that got me a cushy job.

Most of those people didn't start out in a bad career in purpose, but society changed. Many women chose the security of hospital and care home jobs. Back in the days those jobs didn't get you rich either but they were paid ok, were fulfilling, they were easy to combine with a family. But as a society in my country we decided to close the care homes and send people away from hospital much earlier, we wanted to have care in the community, so all those ladies lost their jobs and were re-hired as home helps in worse conditions and lower pay. Problem is, going back to school costs €€€ and there are no better paid jobs for their current skillset. So they are stuck.

Almost no young people enter this field now, because they know what they're signing up for. A labour shortage does not lead to higher wages, because most customers can only afford a set amount of money. So better wages + labour shortage would lead to less people being able to afford help and some going without. Guess who's going to take care of their elderly relatives for free in between shifts? But this happens in many fields: the jobs change and the workers are worse off.

I come from a low income background. I needed money when I turned 18 and started to work and completed a bachelor's degree through evening classes. Took me 6 years and cost me €250/month in tuition for all those years. I didn't want to take out student loans because I didn't want to go in debt and didn't know if I could pay them back. Everyone advised me against completing met degree as it took me so long. I got the degree and the cushy job. I'm now working on my Master's, took out full student loans because they're 0% interest but have the money to pay them back instantly if I had to. My perspective has changed from thinking as a poor person to thinking as a rich person. But I first had to get rich to make that change. You can't blame poor people for thinking like one.

[A Fella from Stella]

This "lazy poor" attitude creeps in even where people aren't poor. Some years back I was reinventing myself and was the lowest paid person at a small company, making $40k in a HCOLA. I also had a summer job making $5k. The leader-shit would vacillate from me being lazy and just wanting things handed to me, to complaining that I had a summer job (I was also getting my MBA). One even said that he could not believe that I would let my wife stay home with the kids - I guess making her part of the problem in my lazy, poverty-stricken household.

Thankfully, I had passive income that exceeded what I made there, so I was able to take what I learned, move on, and now make much better money in the same field.

However, where I work now I'm in the middle of the pay range, making $72,000 where everyone else makes $35-160k. In meetings where it's just us people making $70k+, they complain about the lack of work done by admin staff. Meanwhile, I know that half the people making $100k+ are dumbasses. They walk slowly, look at their cell phones half the day, etc.

[pecunia]

Lots of interesting posts here.  Some are about financial education.  This site has helped me with my financial education.  It has taught me stuff I think I should have learned long ago.  So, my first thought was to agree with the people who say we all need better financial education.  I thought, "Yah, we won't be taken for such a ride by banks, taxes, poor spending habits, etc."

Then I got to thinking what would actually happen if people got better financial education.  Would their standard of living go up?  Well, maybe for a little while.  However, think what the powers at be would do once they realized the effects of that financial education.

They would surely change the rules to make sure they got "theirs" and you didn't get "yours."  That appears to be the way it is in most of the world.

Much better if we just keep this financial education thing to ourselves and let the high credit card rates, pay day loan businesses and extra bank fees just go on and on.  We know about these things and the powers at be will avoid our small minority of the greater populace.

[FIREstache]

If no one wants to work the job for the agreed upon wages, then the market will demand an increase in the wage.  If people are accepting the job offer at current said pay rate, then they must consider it acceptable.  If they want to earn more, they need to put in the effort like so many of us have to get ahead rather than expecting "charity" wages from a business paying more than a job is worth.

You really think that if a human being has the choice between working and starving they'll choose starving?

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.  My viewpoint is that businesses should pay what the job is worth to get someone to do it, not charity wages demanded upon them by any level of government.

[DadJokes]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

I've noticed this too . . . . but it's not entirely on the low-income worker, what you're describing.  I did quite a few low income, blue collar jobs in the summer while putting myself through university.  Anecdote time!

Young GuitarStv was actually a very hard worker.  So the first day he showed up at the steel tempering plant he quickly and efficiently performed all the duties he was given in about half the time he was given to do them.  Then there was nothing to do, so he talked to the shift supervisor to get a different task.  But there was no other task to do.  So the shift supervisor sent young GuitarStv home with half a day's pay, and a very important lesson about factory work.

Being an idiot, young GuitarStv didn't realize that this is how low paid jobs tend to work (hard work gets you punished) and continued to put in extra effort at low paying jobs.  Of five places of employment, four of them rewarded hard work with punishment in some form or other.  (In one place I got unofficially promoted and went from stocking boxes to fixing errors in their software that were costing the company moeny - and everyone was happy.  They actually offered to hire me after the summer and tried to give a big enough salary that I'd quit school.  Which was both flattering and really weird.)

My point being .  .  . some of the 'laziness' you see is learned on the job.  There are a lot of jobs where you are a number, you have zero chance of promotion from within, working harder will not get you ahead (but sometimes will get you punished because you make your supervisor look lazy), and where putting in the minimal effort required is expected.  You can't blame people for learning what they're taught.

[DadJokes]

I too was offered a promotion and a raise (kind of) to not go to school for a convenience store chain. The hard work may be punished at first, but those who work hard get the promotions.

My hard work was rewarded with extra hours. I was getting 20-40 hours of overtime approved every week. The promotion would have made me manager of my own store, but it would have actually been a decrease in pay due to fewer hours.

And I do agree that many bad managers punish hard work in the way you described. It's unfortunate, because they would get better results out of all workers if they rewarded hard work immediately, rather than just stockpiling away that information when future positions became available.

[GuitarStv]

I too was offered a promotion and a raise (kind of) to not go to school for a convenience store chain. The hard work may be punished at first, but those who work hard get the promotions.

That might be true for jobs where internal promotions exist.  I've worked many where they did not.  This seems to be particularly true with work through temp agencies.

My hard work was rewarded with extra hours. I was getting 20-40 hours of overtime approved every week. The promotion would have made me manager of my own store, but it would have actually been a decrease in pay due to fewer hours.

And I do agree that many bad managers punish hard work in the way you described. It's unfortunate, because they would get better results out of all workers if they rewarded hard work immediately, rather than just stockpiling away that information when future positions became available.

My point was simply that enough experience working these types of jobs will make a hard worker a lazy one.  As mentioned, there are a large number of jobs where promotions do not happen internally.

[letsdoit]

i just have a cell phone set to priority only, blocking out all but my favorites

[PDXTabs]

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.

EDITed to add, the Georgia rules are right here (and are actually stricter than the federal ones). They include the language that you must "[a]ccept an offer of employment paying at least the minimum wage at a site or plant not subject to strike or lockout at the time of offer" in complete opposition to your market based argument.

[mm1970]

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.

EDITed to add, the Georgia rules are right here (and are actually stricter than the federal ones). They include the language that you must "[a]ccept an offer of employment paying at least the minimum wage at a site or plant not subject to strike or lockout at the time of offer" in complete opposition to your market based argument.

Also sounds like someone could benefit from some books.  Like "$2 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America"

Also: I'm going to add that book you recommended to my list.

[Bloop Bloop]

I too was offered a promotion and a raise (kind of) to not go to school for a convenience store chain. The hard work may be punished at first, but those who work hard get the promotions.

That might be true for jobs where internal promotions exist.  I've worked many where they did not.  This seems to be particularly true with work through temp agencies.

My hard work was rewarded with extra hours. I was getting 20-40 hours of overtime approved every week. The promotion would have made me manager of my own store, but it would have actually been a decrease in pay due to fewer hours.

And I do agree that many bad managers punish hard work in the way you described. It's unfortunate, because they would get better results out of all workers if they rewarded hard work immediately, rather than just stockpiling away that information when future positions became available.

My point was simply that enough experience working these types of jobs will make a hard worker a lazy one.  As mentioned, there are a large number of jobs where promotions do not happen internally.

If you're not getting the promotion you want, there's nothing stopping you from you setting your own rates and working as a contractor. Plenty of cleaning contractors, Airtasker workers and Uber drivers and other workers who take matters into their own hands.

[GuitarStv]

You believe that Uber drivers make a lot of money?

[Wrenchturner]

I'm not convinced that education really sticks in the classroom.  There aren't any stakes.  No consequences to failure.  No prioritization of information.  It's a big shock when the rules change after graduation.  I was careless with an inheritance when I was poor, and I would now invest an inheritance, which is interesting since I'm far more financially stable now.  Was I more of a victim then?  Maybe.  But my work ethic is what got me through it.

Drug addicts might be victims of circumstance, but it is only when they DECIDE to quit that their ailment departs.

[Bloop Bloop]

You believe that Uber drivers make a lot of money?

Enough to not starve, which is all that is required.

[GuitarStv]

You believe that Uber drivers make a lot of money?

Enough to not starve, which is all that is required.

So you think they should quit a job where they're not starving and cannot get a promotion to start a job where the best they can hope for is to not starve (and where they cannot get a promotion)?

Can you explain the logic there?

[Bloop Bloop]

I don't know why you're so hung up on promotions. If you don't like your rate of pay then set your own. Uber drivers can game the system by choosing when and where they want to take rides and in doing so can influence their own rate of pay. It's not brain surgery.

So if they're smart enough, they'll do well, like a minority of Uber drivers. If they're not very good at gaming the system, they won't do well. But they still won't starve. So what's the issue? Everyone's happy. Capitalism at work.

[PDXTabs]

You believe that Uber drivers make a lot of money?

I know a guy that drives for Uber, lives in his parents' attic, and still sells plasma. Honestly, his life isn't half bad but only because he drives Uber in a HCOL area without realizing the HCOL. Which is sort of like his parents subsidizing my Uber rides.

But you know, market forces are a religious institution to some.

[Cool Friend]

You believe that Uber drivers make a lot of money?

I know a guy that drives for Uber, lives in his parents' attic, and still sells plasma. Honestly, his life isn't half bad but only because he drives Uber in a HCOL area without realizing the HCOL. Which is sort of like his parents subsidizing my Uber rides.

But you know, market forces are a religious institution to some.

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.

[GuitarStv]

I don't know why you're so hung up on promotions. If you don't like your rate of pay then set your own. Uber drivers can game the system by choosing when and where they want to take rides and in doing so can influence their own rate of pay. It's not brain surgery.

Promotions were part of what was being discussed (re: worker laziness designed into the system with low paying jobs) when you interjected.

So if they're smart enough, they'll do well, like a minority of Uber drivers. If they're not very good at gaming the system, they won't do well. But they still won't starve. So what's the issue? Everyone's happy. Capitalism at work.

Slaves tended to get fed too.  This would seem to meet your (low) bar of 'not starving = good enough'.

[Wrenchturner]

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