Minimum Wage and is Walmart underpaying?

[EnjoyIt]

In many parts of the US a family can sustain a happy lifestyle making $7.50/hr full time x 2 people or $30k/yr. It is what we talk about on this forum, no?  This is baring any major health condition or this is with healthcare subsidies. So, currently with the ACA $30k/yr is plenty outside of a major metropolitan areas. If people learned how to be happy without fancy cars and newest cell phones maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately most of the people in the US are consumerist suckas as we like to put it. So, why do tax payers have to pay for those poor lifestyle decisions?

BTW, currently Walmart is paying an average of $13.38/hr
http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2016/01/20/more-than-one-million-walmart-associates-receive-pay-increase-in-2016.  A family of 2 working full time will be making almost $55k/yr.  Wow, compared to mustachian standards they are rolling in it. They might even be able to save some money for retirement. If they started working there at 18, they have the potential to retire before 45.

[solon]

I have friends, a married couple, who have worked at Walmart for 25 years. She is a cashier; he is the manager of the dairy department. They own a VERY nice home, which they paid off last week. I don't know exactly what they're making, but I know they've never had incomes more than their current Walmart incomes.

I asked them one time about all the negative press Walmart gets for cutting hours, pay, and benefits. They said it's simply not true. Some people have a hard time at Walmart, but those are the people that don't show up on time, don't do their jobs well, complaint about everything, etc. They are very pleased with Walmart and how it takes care of their employees.

[SC93]

We live in a world that thinks employers and the government should support them. People like to complain because they think a business is making too much profit. If we pay everyone $100 an hour, charge everyone $300 a month rent on a $1 million house and gave them free food they would spend all their paycheck and still complain. Some how people think the government is suppose to supply them with food, housing, healthcare, beer, cigarettes and baby supplies.

People that know me never complain about not having any money because they know what I'll tell them.... house cleaning = $25-$90+ an hour. Lawn work = $20-$65+ an hour. And they know I'm more than willing to help them get started..... so they stay quiet so they won't have to work. The only one that has asked me for money within the last 15 years is my daughter and finally I've broken her of the habit because she knows I'm not going to send her any.

[ChrisLansing]

In many parts of the US a family can sustain a happy lifestyle making $7.50/hr full time x 2 people or $30k/yr. 

Yes, here in the rust belt that's true.   Such a family could even buy a house. 

The obvious problem is that this is true where it's true, and false where it isn't.   You can't live in San Francisco on $30K a year.   

The other problem is that full time employment may be hard to get. 

But, it's a good point.   If people weren't so caught up in consuming they could live on a good deal less money, even MW in many parts of the country.   

[SC93]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

[inline five]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

I used to work multiple jobs and juggling the hours was pretty tough. Lots of people working split shifts here too, ie do 3 hours from 6am-9am and another 3 hours from 4pm-7pm.

Employment levels are pretty good nowadays, there was a time not so long ago where low wage jobs weren't even accepting applications.

[EnjoyIt]

In many parts of the US a family can sustain a happy lifestyle making $7.50/hr full time x 2 people or $30k/yr. 

Yes, here in the rust belt that's true.   Such a family could even buy a house. 

The obvious problem is that this is true where it's true, and false where it isn't.   You can't live in San Francisco on $30K a year.   

The other problem is that full time employment may be hard to get. 

But, it's a good point.   If people weren't so caught up in consuming they could live on a good deal less money, even MW in many parts of the country.

If you can't afford where you live, then move. No one is forcing them to live in San Fransisco.  BTW, if everyone who can't afford to live on $10/hr moved out of San Fransisco, the demand would increase and wages would rise. Again, why should our taxes pay for someone else's poor decisions. 

BTW, minimum wage is $13/hr in San Fransisco.

[ChrisLansing]

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Respectfully I don't think you know what you're talking about.    But yes, you can string together enough gigs (maybe) to make it.   

[ChrisLansing]

If you can't afford where you live, then move. No one is forcing them to live in San Fransisco.  BTW, if everyone who can't afford to live on $10/hr moved out of San Fransisco, the demand would increase and wages would rise. Again, why should our taxes pay for someone else's poor decisions. 

BTW, minimum wage is $13/hr in San Fransisco.

I wasn't suggesting there's anything wrong with moving, just that you can't live in SF on 7.50.     

Who's talking about taxes?   I'm talking about living on Min Wage, or not, depending on economic conditions.   


Conversation on the forum is really starting to bottom out.    Think I'll make myself scarce.


It's interesting how min wage varies now, from state to state and with some cities having their own mw.   

[EnjoyIt]

If you can't afford where you live, then move. No one is forcing them to live in San Fransisco.  BTW, if everyone who can't afford to live on $10/hr moved out of San Fransisco, the demand would increase and wages would rise. Again, why should our taxes pay for someone else's poor decisions. 

BTW, minimum wage is $13/hr in San Fransisco.

I wasn't suggesting there's anything wrong with moving, just that you can't live in SF on 7.50.     

Who's talking about taxes?   I'm talking about living on Min Wage, or not, depending on economic conditions.   


Conversation on the forum is really starting to bottom out.    Think I'll make myself scarce.


It's interesting how min wage varies now, from state to state and with some cities having their own mw.

I think it should vary.  Just like you pointed out it is much more expensive to live in San Fransisco and therefor it would make sense to pay a bit more as demand for filing that job would be more difficult at a much  lower wage. 

I have always wondered how housing prices can keep going up and up and up in some regions and still have people working for low wages.  How do they afford it when a massive portion of their check just covers rent.  Why do they choose to accept that and not just move?

[StarBright]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

I used to work multiple jobs and juggling the hours was pretty tough. Lots of people working split shifts here too, ie do 3 hours from 6am-9am and another 3 hours from 4pm-7pm.

Employment levels are pretty good nowadays, there was a time not so long ago where low wage jobs weren't even accepting applications.

^ This. I actually worked at Walmart as a second job when I was in a really tough spot. It didn't last more than a month and the concurrent scheduling was a huge issue. Sometimes I'd be on an overnight shift and the next day they'd have me on a 1st/2nd split.  Add to that the expectation that you clocked out before you did your "clean up" meant they basically wanted me to work extra time unpaid every shift. They never gave a schedule more than a week in advance and they changed the existing schedule frequently.

It was impossible to keep it going as a second job and it was impossible to get more than 28 hours a week out of them. Also- I have never dealt with more sexual harassment than when I worked at a midwestern Walmart on night shift.

[gardeningandgreen]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

The problem with having 2 20 hour a week jobs is that you don't generally qualify for benefits like a 401K and health insurance. The health insurance can cause many people to stay in poverty even though they are working 2 or 3 jobs and working 40+ hours a week.

[ChrisLansing]

I have always wondered how housing prices can keep going up and up and up in some regions and still have people working for low wages.  How do they afford it when a massive portion of their check just covers rent.  Why do they choose to accept that and not just move?

I've always wondered about that too.   Maybe they just don't know how cheaply one can live in some regions.   

[mm1970]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Well, pretty much because Juan's tacos and Bob's pizza
1.  Aren't going to be providing you with health insurance and
2.  Are unlikely to be willing to work around each other's schedule. 

I mean, maybe they will, maybe they will not.  But I've read many an article or study about "big data" and how many large companies are using the data to determine when they need people.  So, Starbucks, for example, will make a new schedule every week or two, based on historical data of how many customers they get and when.  (Makes it hard to work another job or take classes.)

Even jobs that require a bit more education (like child care worker) around here are the same.  They have a number of "not full time" employees because they are hourly.  And if on any particular day, a lot of children are missing due to vacation or sickness, someone gets the short shift (literally) and is sent home.

I'm seriously not going to argue that *anyone* should work 80 hours a week.  I've done 60-72 in the past, for weeks on end, when I was younger.  Eventually you get to be a danger to others when you get behind a car.  If society is such that we expect people to work 80 hours a week to afford the basics (a roof, food, clothing, and medical care), then society is really fucked up.

[Bucksandreds]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Well, pretty much because Juan's tacos and Bob's pizza
1.  Aren't going to be providing you with health insurance and
2.  Are unlikely to be willing to work around each other's schedule. 

I mean, maybe they will, maybe they will not.  But I've read many an article or study about "big data" and how many large companies are using the data to determine when they need people.  So, Starbucks, for example, will make a new schedule every week or two, based on historical data of how many customers they get and when.  (Makes it hard to work another job or take classes.)

Even jobs that require a bit more education (like child care worker) around here are the same.  They have a number of "not full time" employees because they are hourly.  And if on any particular day, a lot of children are missing due to vacation or sickness, someone gets the short shift (literally) and is sent home.

I'm seriously not going to argue that *anyone* should work 80 hours a week.  I've done 60-72 in the past, for weeks on end, when I was younger.  Eventually you get to be a danger to others when you get behind a car.  If society is such that we expect people to work 80 hours a week to afford the basics (a roof, food, clothing, and medical care), then society is really fucked up.

We  won't. We're seeing some of the last throws of white supremacism. It's much more subtle now and it's manifesting in ultra conservative rhetoric. Generally things that are dying have a moment where they make a last 'push' toward power. Think early battle of the bulge in WW2, or increased hate crimes during desegregation. Many who are a part of it aren't even consciously aware of it. They aren't necessarily even white supremacists or racists. They just see that people like them aren't thriving and they're lashing out on the stereotypical characteristics of the 'other.' My parents are like this and they're not remotely overtly racist. They just don't like the 'otherness' of non conservatism.

[MOD NOTE: That's seriously off-topic and doesn't follow from what you replied to.]

[MrsPete]

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Yes, my college sophomore put her efforts into finding a simple retail job, and she was offered about five jobs -- she was able to pick and choose.  If you're looking for a retail or food-service job, yeah, they're easy to find.

The negative is that those jobs don't tend to offer any benefits, which is fine for my college girl but not so fine for someone who's looking for something permanent. 

And these jobs are easy to find for people who don't have a criminal record, a drug problem, lack of transportation. or a slew of firings behind them. 

[EnjoyIt]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Well, pretty much because Juan's tacos and Bob's pizza
1.  Aren't going to be providing you with health insurance and
2.  Are unlikely to be willing to work around each other's schedule. 

I mean, maybe they will, maybe they will not.  But I've read many an article or study about "big data" and how many large companies are using the data to determine when they need people.  So, Starbucks, for example, will make a new schedule every week or two, based on historical data of how many customers they get and when.  (Makes it hard to work another job or take classes.)

Even jobs that require a bit more education (like child care worker) around here are the same.  They have a number of "not full time" employees because they are hourly.  And if on any particular day, a lot of children are missing due to vacation or sickness, someone gets the short shift (literally) and is sent home.

I'm seriously not going to argue that *anyone* should work 80 hours a week.  I've done 60-72 in the past, for weeks on end, when I was younger.  Eventually you get to be a danger to others when you get behind a car.  If society is such that we expect people to work 80 hours a week to afford the basics (a roof, food, clothing, and medical care), then society is really fucked up.

If you are only making $15k-$20k/yr you don't need employer provided health insurance.  You have ACA and its subsidies.    You also don't need 80 hours/wk because $!5k-$20k is plenty of money for a single person. 

My point that started this thread is that the only reason why minimum wage is not enough in most of the US is because people are consumerist suckers making poor lifestyle choices.  Not to mention MMM has consistently shows that $24k is plenty of money for a family of 3.  If you want more than minimum wage then you should apply yourself to get a promotion or to learn a skill that commands higher wages. The only thing that minimum wage does not cover is healthcare which currently is taken care of by the ACA which isn't the point of this topic.

So minium wage is actually a pretty good living wage as well.

[I'm a red panda]

MMM $25k budget requires a paid off house. Where does someone who has only ever made minimum wage get that?

To say minimum wage is enough for a family is absurd. My daycare costs are $13k a year, and I don't use the most expensive option available.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

MMM $25k budget requires a paid off house. Where does someone who has only ever made minimum wage get that?

To say minimum wage is enough for a family is absurd. My daycare costs are $13k a year, and I don't use the most expensive option available.

His budget also includes a lot of luxuries that could be trimmed. I spend about the same as MMM each year and I allow myself most of the luxuries I want. I did some calculations that if I cut out my own luxuries, I could halve my spend to perhaps $12k/year, compared to a hypothetical minimum wage of $8.50/hr x 40hrs/week x 52weeks/year = $17,680/year (assumes full time hours and no vacation which would suck, of course).

It would be tight after taxes and the much greater difficulty of building a safety net would leave a person vulnerable to income and expense shocks if they didn't already have one established, but it's clearly possible. For an 18 month period a decade ago I was making $6/hr and lived on less than $10k/year.

The counter-argument is someone who is earning minimum wage might be earning at that low wage because of low a level of human capital, cognitive deficiencies, chronic and/or severe health problems, or behavioral issues. In those cases, the sort of budget planning, cost optimization skills, and mental discipline necessary to plan financially might also be lacking in that individual. My suspicion is much of the reason why low wages seem unlivable is because of the co-morbidity between low earnings and other psychological or health problems or cognitive deficiencies that prevent successful budgeting and financial management.

You also mention child care which would be relevant in some households (minimum wage earners are less likely to be parents than other workers). In those cases, if $5-6/hour (extrapolating from your $13K/year datum) is the going rate, it might make sense for a second wage earner in household also commanding only a minimum wage to stay at home rather than pay 2/3 their pre-tax wages in child care costs. Of course, there are single-earner households with kids where that argument doesn't apply, though the aforementioned NYTimes article suggests single-wage households represent just 19% of all minimum wage earners.

My point is it clearly can be done, but many people earning low wages would find it for the above reasons much harder to do than a typical regular on this forum. I think it's helpful to draw attention to the real problem in the discussion clearly: it's mostly not just the low wages; rather, a person's behaviors and decisions are crucial in determining if minimum wage is enough to live on.

[calimom]

There are some employers who find the minimum wage a burden, be they small businesses or billionaire overlords. Lacking any government controls altogether, they would actually pay a lower wage than whatever federal or local mandate that oversees them.

Walmart, a great example, relies heavily on SNAP, ACA, EITC, etc. for its "associates". Without such overreaching governmental interference, they might actually need to pay a living wage and real-world benefits. The horrors.

[Davids]

My take on minimum wage is simple and it may be cruel and I am sorry if I offend those here. Unless you are a high school or college student working part time you have no one to blame but yourself if the best job you can get is minimum wage. What exactly has the person ringing up my order at McDonalds or greeting me at Walmart done for their job to be worth $15/hr that people propose to be minimum wage. Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. The opportunities are there for people to get a skill, to network, to get an education but it is up to the individual to go for it. You don't need to get a college degree to succeed. Learn to be a plumber. That is a trade that will never get transferred to India. Learn how to repair roof's, people always need roofers. There are so many opportunities out there. Rather than those people crying that the minimum wage needs to be increased go obtain a skill so you can get a higher paying job. Ringing up my order at McDonalds or greeting me at Walmart is not worth $15/hr.

[Cranky]

Sadly, there are a lot of people who are never, ever going to be skilled workers. They just don't have it.

And while I think that it's true that two people working fulltime at minimum wage (and WalMart and other places do offer benefits to fulltime employees) and living frugally can do okay, there are an awful lot of people who don't fit into that mold.

If you don't have a lot of money, and you don't have family to back you up, a few early mistakes make it awfully difficult to recover and get ahead. The biggest and most obvious problem people have is having kids too early and not in the context of a stable family.

A single parent with two small kids is screwed.

(One of my dd's works for Cinemark part time and goes to school part time. They offer both a retirement plan and health insurance.)

[kayvent]

My take on minimum wage is simple and it may be cruel and I am sorry if I offend those here. Unless you are a high school or college student working part time you have no one to blame but yourself if the best job you can get is minimum wage.

I tend not to blame "the system" but I will here. Someone with just a high school degree has thirteen years of formal training. They've been taught arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, formal art, read Shakespearean literature, studied wars and confederations, and yet, somehow the quality of that was so poor that the best they can get is a burger flipping job.

[Unique User]

As other posters have written, it is often unlikely that minimum wage jobs are a full 40 hours and your schedule always changes.   I've worked three jobs at once and always, there were kind business owners/managers that would give me schedules well in advance so I could make everything work.  Also, that $13 number as the average for Walmart?  That is not the average for associates, that seems to be around $9-$10, which seems like a lot, but not when you can't get 40 hours (more like 28 to 32 hours a week) and your schedule does not allow for a second job.  At a $9 an hour part time income, there is no margin for mistakes or emergencies or ability to save for rental deposits or car purchases/repairs.  If you live in an area with even medium housing prices and no public transportation, it's going to be super difficult.

Another poster writes that people should just get better skills, while that sounds good, who then will do all those minimum wage jobs?  Someone has to do those jobs.  I am all for a living wage and a safety net that is there for when you lose your job.  I am NOT for a safety net that supports people who have a job and can't earn enough because of scheduling issues and lack of hours.  That to me is paying taxes to support corporations to allow them to have an underpaid workforce. 

[Bucksandreds]

As other posters have written, it is often unlikely that minimum wage jobs are a full 40 hours and your schedule always changes.   I've worked three jobs at once and always, there were kind business owners/managers that would give me schedules well in advance so I could make everything work.  Also, that $13 number as the average for Walmart?  That is not the average for associates, that seems to be around $9-$10, which seems like a lot, but not when you can't get 40 hours (more like 28 to 32 hours a week) and your schedule does not allow for a second job.  At a $9 an hour part time income, there is no margin for mistakes or emergencies or ability to save for rental deposits or car purchases/repairs.  If you live in an area with even medium housing prices and no public transportation, it's going to be super difficult.

Another poster writes that people should just get better skills, while that sounds good, who then will do all those minimum wage jobs?  Someone has to do those jobs.  I am all for a living wage and a safety net that is there for when you lose your job.  I am NOT for a safety net that supports people who have a job and can't earn enough because of scheduling issues and lack of hours.  That to me is paying taxes to support corporations to allow them to have an underpaid workforce.

Best solution is to raise the Earned Income Tax credit.  A way to make low paying corporations accountable would be to work it like or include it in unemployment taxes paid by companies. If your employees use it more then you pay more. Raising the minimum wage to $15 may put too many people out of work. Also teenagers wouldn't lose jobs in my scenario as no one would be paying them$15 per hour and they wouldn't qualify for the eitc.

[EnjoyIt]

Blame the system?  Why blame the system, blame the student and the student's parents.  Even shitty schools have achievers come out of there.  The studies show parents who take an interest in education will have kids who tend to excel in life. This is irrespective of what school they go to.

Either way, my stance holds that in most parts of the US a family of 2,3, or 4 making minimum wage can have a happy life making $30k/yr if they so desired and there is no need to increase minimum wage.

The reality is that people have no finances skills in all income levels.  You can make $7.50/hr or you can make $200/hr and have the same crappy consumerist lifestyle. So the problem isn't really the wage, but the lifestyle choices, and the lack of education on personal finance.

[Kl285528]

Posting to follow

[SC93]

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Respectfully I don't think you know what you're talking about.    But yes, you can string together enough gigs (maybe) to make it.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. All you did was say that I'm wrong with no explanation.... not very credible. While side gigs can get you through (and that was my example) the only reason most people that don't have a job say they can't find one is because they are being too picky. I know a headhunter so I know what I'm talking about. I also have friends that say they can't find a job. While what they say is true, it is false. They can't find the PERFECT job for them. They are offered jobs but the jobs are not in their 'FIELD'. Aaawwww, not in their field, well too bad, take the job.

On the other hand, I'd like for someone to explain to me why anyone would want a job? I just don't understand. I've had people tell me false things such as they want the benefits. $20-$40 an hour with benefits or $90+ an hour working for myself and I make my own benefits. I'll got with the $90 an hour. If you think $40 an hour with benefits is better I can send you a working calculator, just give me your address.

You say that I'm wrong but you failed to explain. By the way, the city of Dallas needs 20,000 construction workers for those that can't find a 'job' and must have a 'job'. That doesn't include all the surrounding towns that are building like crazy and can't find workers.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The worst part about the time I worked for Walmart was how they forced me to keep working during my lunch breaks, because if I refused they would fire me and nobody else was hiring in the area. I eventually got a $15 check from a class action suit, so I guess that makes up for all the hours I had to work for no pay for months and months.

We had a collection can in the break room so the employees with children could afford a turkey for Thanksgiving. You can only make food stamps stretch so far.

The Waltons made billions of dollars, though, so I guess it was good business. They really are pretty smart. They figured out how to get Joe Public to pay half or more of their employees wages through welfare programs and Joe Public is so clueless that he blames the employees for it.

[EnjoyIt]

The worst part about the time I worked for Walmart was how they forced me to keep working during my lunch breaks, because if I refused they would fire me and nobody else was hiring in the area. I eventually got a $15 check from a class action suit, so I guess that makes up for all the hours I had to work for no pay for months and months.

We had a collection can in the break room so the employees with children could afford a turkey for Thanksgiving. You can only make food stamps stretch so far.

The Waltons made billions of dollars, though, so I guess it was good business. They really are pretty smart. They figured out how to get Joe Public to pay half or more of their employees wages through welfare programs and Joe Public is so clueless that he blames the employees for it.

But why should they need food stamps? Why would they need a collection plate.  If they are being paid $10/hr which is the minimum there after 6 months training that is $20k/yr.  If both family members work that is $40k/yr.  That is more than enough money to be happy, feed themselves, and even put a few dollars away for retirement. Unless of coarse you want to subsidize their phone and their car or whatever other consumerist crap they purchased that month.

[ChrisLansing]

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Respectfully I don't think you know what you're talking about.    But yes, you can string together enough gigs (maybe) to make it.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. All you did was say that I'm wrong with no explanation.... not very credible. While side gigs can get you through (and that was my example) the only reason most people that don't have a job say they can't find one is because they are being too picky. I know a headhunter so I know what I'm talking about. I also have friends that say they can't find a job. While what they say is true, it is false. They can't find the PERFECT job for them. They are offered jobs but the jobs are not in their 'FIELD'. Aaawwww, not in their field, well too bad, take the job.

On the other hand, I'd like for someone to explain to me why anyone would want a job? I just don't understand. I've had people tell me false things such as they want the benefits. $20-$40 an hour with benefits or $90+ an hour working for myself and I make my own benefits. I'll got with the $90 an hour. If you think $40 an hour with benefits is better I can send you a working calculator, just give me your address.

You say that I'm wrong but you failed to explain. By the way, the city of Dallas needs 20,000 construction workers for those that can't find a 'job' and must have a 'job'. That doesn't include all the surrounding towns that are building like crazy and can't find workers.

If you've been reading all the posts it ought to be obvious why you're wrong - you're suggesting that it's easy to find work and easy to string together enough gigs to get 40 (or even more) hours a week.   

You and I don't disagree in broad general terms.   People should take whatever they can find, they should seek two or three part time jobs if they can't get a 40 hour per week job.   The difference is that you want to say it's easy, and it just isn't, for all the reasons that others have given in their posts.   

I have a friend who makes a decent living on the "gig" economy.    He has a low pay PT job, plays music in bars/clubs, and does some freelance writing.   But it's a different story for those working at WM and trying to also work at HD or Applebee's.   As others have pointed out, it's hard to coordinate shedules, and many places just won't give you more than 32 hours, if that.   

[WhiteTrashCash]

I really shouldn't be by this point, but I'm continually astonished by how many people despise the poor. There are so many people who just put their fingers in their ears whenever I try to explain what it was like. It would be wonderful if we lived in a fantasy land where everybody earned $100,000/year pushing buttons on computers, but this is real life. People get stuck in low wage jobs and they get taken advantage of because nobody cares. It would be so easy to be like Canada where everybody gets to live great lives, but Americans simply don't want life to be better for their neighbors..

I don't know where this attitude comes from -- maybe Puritanism from the 1600s? -- but it's really annoying.

[kayvent]

I really shouldn't be by this point, but I'm continually astonished by how many people despise the poor. There are so many people who just put their fingers in their ears whenever I try to explain what it was like. It would be wonderful if we lived in a fantasy land where everybody earned $100,000/year pushing buttons on computers, but this is real life. People get stuck in low wage jobs and they get taken advantage of because nobody cares. It would be so easy to be like Canada where everybody gets to live great lives, but Americans simply don't want life to be better for their neighbors..

I don't know where this attitude comes from -- maybe Puritanism from the 1600s? -- but it's really annoying.

As a Canadian, I sadly must say that we are none the better. We talk a big game about wanting to help the poor but we continuously vote politicians in to help the bourgeoisie under the guise that somehow cutting taxes for or giving large entitlements to people making middle incomes and higher helps the poor.

[calimom]

I really shouldn't be by this point, but I'm continually astonished by how many people despise the poor. There are so many people who just put their fingers in their ears whenever I try to explain what it was like. It would be wonderful if we lived in a fantasy land where everybody earned $100,000/year pushing buttons on computers, but this is real life. People get stuck in low wage jobs and they get taken advantage of because nobody cares. It would be so easy to be like Canada where everybody gets to live great lives, but Americans simply don't want life to be better for their neighbors..

I don't know where this attitude comes from -- maybe Puritanism from the 1600s? -- but it's really annoying.

Thank you, WhiteTrashCash, you won the internet, or at least this small corner of it, the prize today for simply stating the truth. It's easy to sit in one's Barcalounger and say "why don't they (the poors) simply MOVE? Why don't they better themselves? It is so complicated on so many levels. Mental illness, generational poverty, addiction, lack of social capital play huge roles in why people don't react in the ways that supposedly civilized people think they should. There is so much lack of compassion.

[mpcharles]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Well, pretty much because Juan's tacos and Bob's pizza
1.  Aren't going to be providing you with health insurance and
2.  Are unlikely to be willing to work around each other's schedule. 

I mean, maybe they will, maybe they will not.  But I've read many an article or study about "big data" and how many large companies are using the data to determine when they need people.  So, Starbucks, for example, will make a new schedule every week or two, based on historical data of how many customers they get and when.  (Makes it hard to work another job or take classes.)

Even jobs that require a bit more education (like child care worker) around here are the same.  They have a number of "not full time" employees because they are hourly.  And if on any particular day, a lot of children are missing due to vacation or sickness, someone gets the short shift (literally) and is sent home.

I'm seriously not going to argue that *anyone* should work 80 hours a week.  I've done 60-72 in the past, for weeks on end, when I was younger.  Eventually you get to be a danger to others when you get behind a car.  If society is such that we expect people to work 80 hours a week to afford the basics (a roof, food, clothing, and medical care), then society is really fucked up.

We  won't. We're seeing some of the last throws of white supremacism. It's much more subtle now and it's manifesting in ultra conservative rhetoric. Generally things that are dying have a moment where they make a last 'push' toward power. Think early battle of the bulge in WW2, or increased hate crimes during desegregation. Many who are a part of it aren't even consciously aware of it. They aren't necessarily even white supremacists or racists. They just see that people like them aren't thriving and they're lashing out on the stereotypical characteristics of the 'other.' My parents are like this and they're not remotely overtly racist. They just don't like the 'otherness' of non conservatism.

I have honestly never read such a more offensive or stupid post in my entire life. Everything that's wrong with the world is due to white people? Please go kill yourself. P.s I'm not white I'm black.

[MOD NOTE:Forum Rule #1.  Banned.]

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Well that escalated quickly. Also: "It's much more subtle now and it's manifesting in ultra conservative rhetoric" is an oxymoron (when are conservatives subtle? It's their greatest strength...and weakness). On otherness (might not be any new concepts there to many but I enjoyed the anecdotes on how tangential connections have transcended an otherwise strict and explicitly defined us-them viewpoint in the past).

[EnjoyIt]

I really shouldn't be by this point, but I'm continually astonished by how many people despise the poor. There are so many people who just put their fingers in their ears whenever I try to explain what it was like. It would be wonderful if we lived in a fantasy land where everybody earned $100,000/year pushing buttons on computers, but this is real life. People get stuck in low wage jobs and they get taken advantage of because nobody cares. It would be so easy to be like Canada where everybody gets to live great lives, but Americans simply don't want life to be better for their neighbors..

I don't know where this attitude comes from -- maybe Puritanism from the 1600s? -- but it's really annoying.

Thank you, WhiteTrashCash, you won the internet, or at least this small corner of it, the prize today for simply stating the truth. It's easy to sit in one's Barcalounger and say "why don't they (the poors) simply MOVE? Why don't they better themselves? It is so complicated on so many levels. Mental illness, generational poverty, addiction, lack of social capital play huge roles in why people don't react in the ways that supposedly civilized people think they should. There is so much lack of compassion.

Can I please discuss all of your topics?
Addiction:  The issue with addiction is that they are just that, addicted and are a very high risk to spending every dollar on said addiction making helping those people very difficult.  Give them $500 to help better themselves and there is a good chance it will be used to buy drugs or alcohol instead of food.  That money would be better spent on rehab. 

Mental illness: Another problem that will not be fixed by throwing money directly at the patient.  The most ideal way is actually having a social worker that checks up on these people once a week, making sure they are holding whatever job they have if they can work, taking their medication, and seeing their psychiatrist on a regular basis. Actually spending money on a social worker ends up being much less expensive than dealing with the fallout of a poorly treated mental illness.

Social Capital: That can potentially be solved by proper commercials explaining the benefits of education which would also help with generational poverty.

I'm not sure how any of the above is lack of compassion.  I also don't see why a starting wage of $10/hr (the starting salary at Walmart after 6 months training) is the worst thing in the world since it can provide a very reasonable lifestyle if those making $10/hr were not consumerist suckers. Plus Walmart offers a 10% discount at Walmart which is a huge savings on the grocery bill. 

[bassman2003]

I really shouldn't be by this point, but I'm continually astonished by how many people despise the poor. There are so many people who just put their fingers in their ears whenever I try to explain what it was like. It would be wonderful if we lived in a fantasy land where everybody earned $100,000/year pushing buttons on computers, but this is real life. People get stuck in low wage jobs and they get taken advantage of because nobody cares. It would be so easy to be like Canada where everybody gets to live great lives, but Americans simply don't want life to be better for their neighbors..

I don't know where this attitude comes from -- maybe Puritanism from the 1600s? -- but it's really annoying.

Thank you, WhiteTrashCash, you won the internet, or at least this small corner of it, the prize today for simply stating the truth. It's easy to sit in one's Barcalounger and say "why don't they (the poors) simply MOVE? Why don't they better themselves? It is so complicated on so many levels. Mental illness, generational poverty, addiction, lack of social capital play huge roles in why people don't react in the ways that supposedly civilized people think they should. There is so much lack of compassion.

Can I please discuss all of your topics?
Addiction:  The issue with addiction is that they are just that, addicted and are a very high risk to spending every dollar on said addiction making helping those people very difficult.  Give them $500 to help better themselves and there is a good chance it will be used to buy drugs or alcohol instead of food.  That money would be better spent on rehab. 

Mental illness: Another problem that will not be fixed by throwing money directly at the patient.  The most ideal way is actually having a social worker that checks up on these people once a week, making sure they are holding whatever job they have if they can work, taking their medication, and seeing their psychiatrist on a regular basis. Actually spending money on a social worker ends up being much less expensive than dealing with the fallout of a poorly treated mental illness.

Social Capital: That can potentially be solved by proper commercials explaining the benefits of education which would also help with generational poverty.

I'm not sure how any of the above is lack of compassion.  I also don't see why a starting wage of $10/hr (the starting salary at Walmart after 6 months training) is the worst thing in the world since it can provide a very reasonable lifestyle if those making $10/hr were not consumerist suckers. Plus Walmart offers a 10% discount at Walmart which is a huge savings on the grocery bill.

Not to seem rude, but I laughed out loud when I read that 'proper commercials' could a force used to to solve problems of generational poverty and a lack of social capital :)

Perhaps what might be a bit more accurate, rather than saying someone is demonstrating a lack of compassion, is that some of the posts/views in this thread seem to contain a lack of empathy.  The societal/personal factors that contribute to and maintain individuals and families in poverty is fairly complex and single factorial solutions are ineffective if the situation is not addressed as a whole. 

Its easy to just tell someone to move, until we factor in that that's the only city/family/friends that they know, and moving to an unknown city while their budget is hanging by a thread is not feasible.  It's easy to assume, well, just double the incomes when talking about the math of incomes/expenses; however many of the people we are talking about are single parents, and can't find full time work with benefits.  It's easy to submit all kinds of of assumptions to another person's situation about what we would do if we were them, but until we have walked a mile in their shoes, or at the very least sat down and listened to their story, having empathy towards them is something that can be difficult.  The psychological concept of confirmation bias can make having (or starting to have) empathy very difficult as well.  Hope you have a wonderful day!

[Bucksandreds]

I really shouldn't be by this point, but I'm continually astonished by how many people despise the poor. There are so many people who just put their fingers in their ears whenever I try to explain what it was like. It would be wonderful if we lived in a fantasy land where everybody earned $100,000/year pushing buttons on computers, but this is real life. People get stuck in low wage jobs and they get taken advantage of because nobody cares. It would be so easy to be like Canada where everybody gets to live great lives, but Americans simply don't want life to be better for their neighbors..

I don't know where this attitude comes from -- maybe Puritanism from the 1600s? -- but it's really annoying.

Thank you, WhiteTrashCash, you won the internet, or at least this small corner of it, the prize today for simply stating the truth. It's easy to sit in one's Barcalounger and say "why don't they (the poors) simply MOVE? Why don't they better themselves? It is so complicated on so many levels. Mental illness, generational poverty, addiction, lack of social capital play huge roles in why people don't react in the ways that supposedly civilized people think they should. There is so much lack of compassion.

Can I please discuss all of your topics?
Addiction:  The issue with addiction is that they are just that, addicted and are a very high risk to spending every dollar on said addiction making helping those people very difficult.  Give them $500 to help better themselves and there is a good chance it will be used to buy drugs or alcohol instead of food.  That money would be better spent on rehab. 

Mental illness: Another problem that will not be fixed by throwing money directly at the patient.  The most ideal way is actually having a social worker that checks up on these people once a week, making sure they are holding whatever job they have if they can work, taking their medication, and seeing their psychiatrist on a regular basis. Actually spending money on a social worker ends up being much less expensive than dealing with the fallout of a poorly treated mental illness.

Social Capital: That can potentially be solved by proper commercials explaining the benefits of education which would also help with generational poverty.

I'm not sure how any of the above is lack of compassion.  I also don't see why a starting wage of $10/hr (the starting salary at Walmart after 6 months training) is the worst thing in the world since it can provide a very reasonable lifestyle if those making $10/hr were not consumerist suckers. Plus Walmart offers a 10% discount at Walmart which is a huge savings on the grocery bill.

Not to seem rude, but I laughed out loud when I read that 'proper commercials' could a force used to to solve problems of generational poverty and a lack of social capital :)

Perhaps what might be a bit more accurate, rather than saying someone is demonstrating a lack of compassion, is that some of the posts/views in this thread seem to contain a lack of empathy.  The societal/personal factors that contribute to and maintain individuals and families in poverty is fairly complex and single factorial solutions are ineffective if the situation is not addressed as a whole. 

Its easy to just tell someone to move, until we factor in that that's the only city/family/friends that they know, and moving to an unknown city while their budget is hanging by a thread is not feasible.  It's easy to assume, well, just double the incomes when talking about the math of incomes/expenses; however many of the people we are talking about are single parents, and can't find full time work with benefits.  It's easy to submit all kinds of of assumptions to another person's situation about what we would do if we were them, but until we have walked a mile in their shoes, or at the very least sat down and listened to their story, having empathy towards them is something that can be difficult.  The psychological concept of confirmation bias can make having (or starting to have) empathy very difficult as well.  Hope you have a wonderful day!

Why are you being polite? Enjoyit's posts display virtually every sign of sociopathy that there is. We cannot keep reasoning with the unreasonable.

[EnjoyIt]

I really shouldn't be by this point, but I'm continually astonished by how many people despise the poor. There are so many people who just put their fingers in their ears whenever I try to explain what it was like. It would be wonderful if we lived in a fantasy land where everybody earned $100,000/year pushing buttons on computers, but this is real life. People get stuck in low wage jobs and they get taken advantage of because nobody cares. It would be so easy to be like Canada where everybody gets to live great lives, but Americans simply don't want life to be better for their neighbors..

I don't know where this attitude comes from -- maybe Puritanism from the 1600s? -- but it's really annoying.

Thank you, WhiteTrashCash, you won the internet, or at least this small corner of it, the prize today for simply stating the truth. It's easy to sit in one's Barcalounger and say "why don't they (the poors) simply MOVE? Why don't they better themselves? It is so complicated on so many levels. Mental illness, generational poverty, addiction, lack of social capital play huge roles in why people don't react in the ways that supposedly civilized people think they should. There is so much lack of compassion.

Can I please discuss all of your topics?
Addiction:  The issue with addiction is that they are just that, addicted and are a very high risk to spending every dollar on said addiction making helping those people very difficult.  Give them $500 to help better themselves and there is a good chance it will be used to buy drugs or alcohol instead of food.  That money would be better spent on rehab. 

Mental illness: Another problem that will not be fixed by throwing money directly at the patient.  The most ideal way is actually having a social worker that checks up on these people once a week, making sure they are holding whatever job they have if they can work, taking their medication, and seeing their psychiatrist on a regular basis. Actually spending money on a social worker ends up being much less expensive than dealing with the fallout of a poorly treated mental illness.

Social Capital: That can potentially be solved by proper commercials explaining the benefits of education which would also help with generational poverty.

I'm not sure how any of the above is lack of compassion.  I also don't see why a starting wage of $10/hr (the starting salary at Walmart after 6 months training) is the worst thing in the world since it can provide a very reasonable lifestyle if those making $10/hr were not consumerist suckers. Plus Walmart offers a 10% discount at Walmart which is a huge savings on the grocery bill.

Not to seem rude, but I laughed out loud when I read that 'proper commercials' could a force used to to solve problems of generational poverty and a lack of social capital :)

Perhaps what might be a bit more accurate, rather than saying someone is demonstrating a lack of compassion, is that some of the posts/views in this thread seem to contain a lack of empathy.  The societal/personal factors that contribute to and maintain individuals and families in poverty is fairly complex and single factorial solutions are ineffective if the situation is not addressed as a whole. 

Its easy to just tell someone to move, until we factor in that that's the only city/family/friends that they know, and moving to an unknown city while their budget is hanging by a thread is not feasible.  It's easy to assume, well, just double the incomes when talking about the math of incomes/expenses; however many of the people we are talking about are single parents, and can't find full time work with benefits.  It's easy to submit all kinds of of assumptions to another person's situation about what we would do if we were them, but until we have walked a mile in their shoes, or at the very least sat down and listened to their story, having empathy towards them is something that can be difficult.  The psychological concept of confirmation bias can make having (or starting to have) empathy very difficult as well.  Hope you have a wonderful day!

I agree, it is very difficult to have empathy from afar. The question of this thread is, does Walmart pay enough and is minimum wage enough? Based on many who can have a very happy and comfortable lifestyle spending $25k/yr or less, I would venture to say, yes. The only argument I have seen here against that is people may have a hard time finding full time work. Back when my family and I were poor as dirt I was able to find work paying above minimum wage pretty easily.  I just don't know what the environment is like today and can't argue for or against it.

The other side topic brought up here is, can we do something to help people break free from minimum wage?  Can we do something to help?  If you don't mind, lets for a moment ignore addiction and mental illness because that is a whole other topic requiring significant resources. How do we help people get out of that minimum wage rut? I believe the only way is education and putting resources towards education.  Those who want it will do everything possible to get out.  Those who don't will continue living the way they are.  You can't force someone out of minimum wage.  You can't buy them out of minimum wage either. Other then education and commercials on the importance of education what else is there? I'm all ears and want to see other ideas.

[EnjoyIt]

Why are you being polite? Enjoyit's posts display virtually every sign of sociopathy that there is. We cannot keep reasoning with the unreasonable.

Bucksypoo,
I am starting to really enjoy your comments. I think I understand the psychology of where they are coming from and am entertained by them. 

[mm1970]

How is it that full time employment is hard to get? I can go anywhere in the US and get houses to clean or yards to work in. Almost every little hick town has a fast food place. Get a job at Juan's Taco's (20 hours a week) and Bob's Pizza (20 hours a week)... taadaaaaa 40 hours. Although there is no reason people in need of money shouldn't be working 80+ hours a week but that's a whole other thread. :)

Employment being hard to get is a false statement.

Well, pretty much because Juan's tacos and Bob's pizza
1.  Aren't going to be providing you with health insurance and
2.  Are unlikely to be willing to work around each other's schedule. 

I mean, maybe they will, maybe they will not.  But I've read many an article or study about "big data" and how many large companies are using the data to determine when they need people.  So, Starbucks, for example, will make a new schedule every week or two, based on historical data of how many customers they get and when.  (Makes it hard to work another job or take classes.)

Even jobs that require a bit more education (like child care worker) around here are the same.  They have a number of "not full time" employees because they are hourly.  And if on any particular day, a lot of children are missing due to vacation or sickness, someone gets the short shift (literally) and is sent home.

I'm seriously not going to argue that *anyone* should work 80 hours a week.  I've done 60-72 in the past, for weeks on end, when I was younger.  Eventually you get to be a danger to others when you get behind a car.  If society is such that we expect people to work 80 hours a week to afford the basics (a roof, food, clothing, and medical care), then society is really fucked up.

If you are only making $15k-$20k/yr you don't need employer provided health insurance.  You have ACA and its subsidies.    You also don't need 80 hours/wk because $!5k-$20k is plenty of money for a single person. 

My point that started this thread is that the only reason why minimum wage is not enough in most of the US is because people are consumerist suckers making poor lifestyle choices.  Not to mention MMM has consistently shows that $24k is plenty of money for a family of 3.  If you want more than minimum wage then you should apply yourself to get a promotion or to learn a skill that commands higher wages. The only thing that minimum wage does not cover is healthcare which currently is taken care of by the ACA which isn't the point of this topic.

So minium wage is actually a pretty good living wage as well.

Sigh

Yes.  Right now, thanks to the ACA, you can have health insurance.  Yay!  You realize that it wasn't true for the vast majority of my lifetime, and perhaps that law will be repealed, right?  So sorry if I sit here thinking that "everything is okay" because it's been "okay" for a very brief # of years.

What of the not-single people working for minimum wage?  I mean, let's face it.  Sometimes you are a single parent on minimum wage because you did something unwise when you were 16, your parents kicked you out, and the baby-daddy ran off.  And maybe all that happened when you were 18, so what are you going to do then?

Sometimes, you're a grown ass adult who gets laid off during a recession, and ends up on minimum wage.

Sometimes, the plant closes down, and you end up on minimum wage.  There are many many areas of the country where you cannot afford to live on minimum wage.

Still you haven't addressed the "2 jobs" issue.  Grocery stores, child cares, pizza places, fast food - these are all places that would prefer to have many part time employees instead of a few full time employees (more flexibility, less cost), so ... how do you package together two jobs?

This whole "work harder, learn a skill, spend less money" - those are all GREAT ideas for people.  Awesome.  I don't disagree - BUT

What percentage of jobs in the country are minimum wage?   Because if there aren't enough "better jobs" for the number of people who want "better jobs", then there are always going to be LOSERS.  If suddenly everyone in the whole country has a degree or skill and smarts and a great work ethic, but there are still only "good" jobs for 90% of the people, then 10% of the people are going to be the "losers".  Then it's just a competition.

[maizefolk]

Thank you, WhiteTrashCash, you won the internet, or at least this small corner of it, the prize today for simply stating the truth. It's easy to sit in one's Barcalounger and say "why don't they (the poors) simply MOVE? Why don't they better themselves? It is so complicated on so many levels. Mental illness, generational poverty, addiction, lack of social capital play huge roles in why people don't react in the ways that supposedly civilized people think they should.

Social Capital: That can potentially be solved by proper commercials explaining the benefits of education which would also help with generational poverty.

Not to seem rude, but I laughed out loud when I read that 'proper commercials' could a force used to to solve problems of generational poverty and a lack of social capital :)

Lots of snipping there to capture the key point. I believe you folks are using the term social capital to refer to different concepts. EnjoyIt, what you're describing (getting a good education, learning useful skills) I hear more often referred to as "human capital." What I normally hear referred to as "social capital" (and my guess for what calimon meant) is essentially having a network of people who you help, and can be relied on to help you in turn in times of need.

The person with lots of social capital can likely has a relative, friend, or neighbor who can watch kids on the day when the daycare closes because the manager is out sick.* The person with low social capital likely has to either miss work (lose $), or pay someone else to watch their kids (lose $). When a person with high social capital's car breaks down, they likely are able to get rides from friends or co-workers until it is fixed. A person with low social capital likely has to rent a car, take taxis/uber, or miss work (all mean losing $).**

Low social capital can come from (among other causes) having a dysfunctional family, moving far award from everyone you know, just being introverted, or being a jerk. The first has an, unfortunate, correlation with poverty. I'd guess the second is actually negatively correlated with poverty, but don't have any data. The third and fourth should have no correlation, positive or negative, with poverty.

Written as someone who is not poor, but once cancelled a medical procedure I was told was necessary by my doctor because they wouldn't let me leave after going under sedation without someone to pick me up (sitcom plot line alert) and there was no one I could ask to do that.

*I'm amazed how often this seems to happen to my friends or co-workers with kids.

**This assumes they live somewhere where the car is a necessity. If they live somewhere with good public transit, a MMM individual likely wouldn't have a car anyway.

[Cassie]

I spent my career in human services first as a social worker and then helping people with disabilities go back to work. People without resources have many obstacles to overcome. $ is only 1 of them. If you are a single parent working 2 minimum wage jobs are you going to be able to get child care for all those weird hours you will be working?  If you have a disability are you smart enough to learn a new skill?  You may be physically disabled and unable to do many jobs.  In many towns the public transportation is going to make all of this impossible it is not readily available. Do you know how many hours a day a parent can spend if riding a bus to get their kids to daycare and then to work, rinse, repeat and still do everything else they need to do.  Moving takes $ and if your support system is in one place you can't leave because you need them.  The list of possible barriers is very long indeed.  It is a myth that most people don't want to work or are lazy.   I loved my work because it had meaning but I can also tell you I heard a lot of heartbreaking stories without easy solutions.

[EnjoyIt]

mm1970,
I agree that I can not address the 2 jobs issue.  I am years removed from minimum wage jobs and don't know what the landscape is today.  I honestly don't know how to address it and said so in a post above.

I am a big supporter of helping people get themselves out of difficult situations. For example, I remember seeing a program for single young moms who just gave birth.  It was awesome. Those moms would elect to live in a group home and start birth control. They get an education so that they can advance past a minimum wage job all while they get assistance with rearing the child.  Once they graduate the program, they are back out on their own.  This is such an amazing use of resources that pulls someone out of dependence.  I tried googling where this program is just now, but was unable to find it.  Something tells me in California, but again I just can't locate it right now.  I hope it was not a figment of my imagination.

I must admit that there are some unfortunate situations where people are stuck as alluded to by Cassie (thanks.) On the one hand you want to be able to assist those people who have fallen on a difficult situation so as to assist them getting out while on the other hand when people make bad choices, unfortunately they must accept the consequences of those choices.  It doesn't matter what your income is, but if you spent your entire life living paycheck to paycheck buying fancy crap you couldn't afford and then lose your job, should it be up to the tax payer to bail you out?  I'm sure you would agree no. The opposite example is the young fool who made childish decisions early in life and now wants to go back to school, get a degree and be a productive member of society they should have the resources to be able to do that.  There is a line there somewhere which I'm sure is practically impossible to find.

One big item regarding this discussion is that I want to make sure we remove disability, mental illness, drug addiction and alcohol addiction from this discussion because those are far more complex topics that require much more than what a simple wage increase can address.

The reality for so many Americans regardless of their income, may it be $7.50/hr or $200/hr, spend outside of their means creating unnecessary hardship for themselves. Based on some of the discussion above I will amend my assertion.  A stable full time job at Walmart provides plenty of money for a happy mustachian lifestyle as proven by the expenses of so many members on this forum.

[intellectsucks]

Mods, can you please move this topic which is clearly political in nature to the off topic sub forum? The main forums should be for discussion of financial/lifestyle topics.

[shenlong55]

In many parts of the US a family can sustain a happy lifestyle making $7.50/hr full time x 2 people or $30k/yr. It is what we talk about on this forum, no?  This is baring any major health condition or this is with healthcare subsidies. So, currently with the ACA $30k/yr is plenty outside of a major metropolitan areas. If people learned how to be happy without fancy cars and newest cell phones maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately most of the people in the US are consumerist suckas as we like to put it. So, why do tax payers have to pay for those poor lifestyle decisions?

BTW, currently Walmart is paying an average of $13.38/hr
http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2016/01/20/more-than-one-million-walmart-associates-receive-pay-increase-in-2016.  A family of 2 working full time will be making almost $55k/yr.  Wow, compared to mustachian standards they are rolling in it. They might even be able to save some money for retirement. If they started working there at 18, they have the potential to retire before 45.

Weren't you just in the ACA thread railing about how we can't expect middle class American's to adopt a Mustachian lifestyle?

You need to accept that most Americans are unable to change into a Mustachian lifestyle.  If we hold those people accountable then we should also hold accountable the poor who choose not to get a higher education and better paying jobs. For multiple reasons not worth getting into, most people don't have the understanding or the motivation and therefor are in the situation they are in. We can't expect them to be mustachians just as we can't expect them to get a biotech degree. I believe we simply need to accept that a certain number of taxpayers have taken a significant hit to their healthcare costs because of the ACA.  We also need to accept that just because a family now has subsidized insurance that they are able to afford their deductibles and therefor receive any benefit from their new subsidized insurance policy.

[TimmyTightWad]

A lot of bootstrapper type arguments in here.
I agree that it's better to always do your best in school and work hard, but for some people even following that advice comes with hurdles and obstacles. IMO minimum wage should keep up with inflation at the very least. Whether or not someone shoulda coulda woulda did better in life as to avoid having to take those jobs is irrelevant to me.

[jlcnuke]

My take on minimum wage is simple and it may be cruel and I am sorry if I offend those here. Unless you are a high school or college student working part time you have no one to blame but yourself if the best job you can get is minimum wage.

I tend not to blame "the system" but I will here. Someone with just a high school degree has thirteen years of formal training. They've been taught arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, formal art, read Shakespearean literature, studied wars and confederations, and yet, somehow the quality of that was so poor that the best they can get is a burger flipping job.

"The system" is to train them to have the absolute minimum knowledge/skills required to start them off in society as an adult. It does not provide them with job skills. That's what further education and/or training/experience is for. Failure to attain such experience/training/education on the part of an individual is NOT the fault of basic schooling. "Just" a high school diploma is "just enough" to be prepared to learn marketable skills in the future, nothing more. At that point you have gained enough knowledge that you can "learn" to be an engineer, "learn" to be a plumber", "learn" to be a manager, "learn" to have other marketable skills, or "choose" to not learn any additional skills and take what jobs are available for those with nothing more to offer employers.

Minimum wage should support a high school kid living with their parents, a college student just needing spending money, or a few young friends sharing an apartment, vehicle, etc while they learn skills the marketplace will pay more for.  It should NOT provide enough money to support a family on as a family to support is not something people with no marketable skills should have in the first place and we shouldn't force employers to pay an unskilled high school kid living with his parents enough money to support a family on their own. Their lack of skills isn't worth that much and their situation shouldn't demand it from society, even if there are a small fraction of people who have made decisions in their life that may have gotten them a family before they developed the skills to earn a paycheck which could support a family.

[mm1970]

Minimum wage should support a high school kid living with their parents, a college student just needing spending money, or a few young friends sharing an apartment, vehicle, etc while they learn skills the marketplace will pay more for.  It should NOT provide enough money to support a family on as a family to support is not something people with no marketable skills should have in the first place and we shouldn't force employers to pay an unskilled high school kid living with his parents enough money to support a family on their own. Their lack of skills isn't worth that much and their situation shouldn't demand it from society, even if there are a small fraction of people who have made decisions in their life that may have gotten them a family before they developed the skills to earn a paycheck which could support a family.

The risky thing here, and the thing that always makes me pause, is the increase in jobs that are deemed "minimum wage" and "unworthy" by ... well ... people.

I grew up in a rural area where, as EnjoyIt claims, people can live well on minimum wage.  Now, it's not really all that true for many reasons, but the ACA has certainly helped a bit.

What have I seen change over the years?  Well, when I was a kid, there were a few manufacturing plants that paid fairly well.  There were the public union type jobs that paid well - Electric company, gas company, teaching.  There were not that many other "professional" jobs around, but we did have a college.  My family members worked at various jobs - truck driving, at the bank, selling cell phones, teaching, working as a bookkeeper, managing a Gap store, working as an officer manager, etc.  My dad was an auto mechanic.

Aside from all of those jobs, there were other "decent" paying jobs.  I myself worked at the grocery store for a bit in summers and on college breaks.  That was a place where you started at the bottom.  But you were soon making above minimum wage.  You started as a bagger - and most baggers were college students, but not all.  The people who were not quickly got moved into stocking, or the deli, or the bakery, or produce, or to work as a cashier.  Now, these people, once they got moved, were able to get close to full time hours, and eventually full time hours.  There were a limited number of "full time" jobs (with benefits), so you might have to wait to get benefits.  I had several weeks one summer of picking up extra hours to get 36+, and they stopped that because they were required to offer me benefits.  (I was making $3.35/hr, I didn't care, I needed the money.)

You were not going to be living high on the hog on these jobs.  But 2 of these jobs in a family, and you could afford a trailer or mobile home in a mobile home park, and some vacations camping, and TV and cable.  You could afford hunting and fishing gear.  It was a solid job that required hard work and some level of skill.

Fast forward to 30 years later, and I'm ... disturbed by the number of people I hear making fun of these jobs, suggesting that they are for "teenagers".  Maybe I'm in a different bubble, but I feel like 30 years ago, people didn't make fun of grocery store cashiers for being stupid and lazy and unskilled.  My home town was rural and not highly paid - I had a friend in a different state who was making $16-24 an hour working as a grocery store cashier in the early 90's.

So in these discussions, I always return to "options".  It appears to me that a few things have happened.
- We've lost "skilled" jobs - manufacturing, bookkeeping, etc
- We've lost partially skilled jobs that require customer service skills - grocery clerk, banker
- We've gained "service" jobs - barista, fast food worker
- We've gained automation - ATMs, self check-out, powerful computers that will do the math for you
- We've redefined jobs that used to be solid jobs with a future, where you can make a decent living if you work hard - as now "for teenagers"
- In my hometown, we lost jobs at the local grocery stores and other small stores to Walmart.  They put a Walmart in when I was in college or out of college, and lost many other jobs to them.  Walmart pays less than the other grocery stores.
- We've changed the rules - now, to be a receptionist at my company, you have to have a college degree.  My sister started as a receptionist, then became the office manager at an insurance company.  No degree.  She's skilled and learned on the job (even got licensed to sell insurance.  Sold one policy.  Then the boss realized he would be losing his own commission.  Wouldn't let her sell anymore.)  Anyway, you get to go into debt to get a college degree to answer phones.

So, what % of jobs today are minimum wage and "unworthy", compared to 30 years ago?