Author Topic: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation  (Read 46731 times)

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #100 on: December 17, 2020, 04:51:50 PM »
For what its worth, I'm in favor of companies paying market wages. The government should take care of providing for welfare. It doesn't make sense to pay a teen and a single mom both the wage it takes to raise a kid. If there's a single mom working a low paying job, the government should step in to fill the gap.

But the notion that some jobs are "career jobs" and others "aren't meant" to pay a living wage is silly. Life would be a whole lot better if we did away with this post-hoc rationalization and just mandated minimum standards of living for all Americans in our first world country.

I also think jobs should pay market wages and I oppose the current high Australian min wage. I think the govt should provide shelter (via community housing arrangements), education, childcare and medical care for free and that would obviate the need for a "living wage" per se.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #101 on: December 17, 2020, 04:53:44 PM »
Holy moly, I kind of agree with bloop. Let me go check my temperature!

Paper Chaser

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1851
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #102 on: December 17, 2020, 05:33:16 PM »
Everybody in that article has made poor choices that have put them in their current position. They might not be financially secure with better, more responsible decision making, but they would certainly be better off than they currently are.

I agree. But many people should not have discretion over income needed for survival, and never will. They weren't raised with the skills or goals to be thrifty, and they will never pick them up. However their poor financial skills doesn't mean they belong out on the street, hungry, or without healthcare.

It's easy to be judgmental from a place of comfort. I think my friend was an idiot to spend his Covid relief check on replica WWF championship belts, and now he has no margin going into the winter.  On the other hand, I have spent lots of money on items quite as frivolous but it hardly registers because we are comfortable (granted we also sacrificed and worked considerably to achieve our current prosperity).

None of the people in the article are homeless or hungry or without healthcare though. They all feel financial stress, but each example could make some pretty easy cuts to give themselves more breathing room too. I bet if they were truly in danger of any of those things occurring in the immediate future, they'd suddenly understand some basic financial rules like cutting excess spending. Most people have some level of self preservation instinct, even if they've never been taught about money.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2020, 05:41:55 PM by Paper Chaser »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #103 on: December 17, 2020, 05:49:51 PM »
Who said they should be making $50k?

And to call these "mindless, no-skill jobs" is pretty far from reality. Have you ever had one of these jobs?
I just made up the $50K as a reference point, since so many think these people currently being woefully underpaid.

YES, I've had several of these jobs...dishwasher, busboy, fry cook, grocery bagger.
I can confirm that these are largely mindless jobs that require absolutely no skills of any kind.

I can't fathom how anyone would think such jobs should pay enough to fully support a household.

Ok. Well, it's a good thing that what you are able to fathom doesn't manifest itself into reality. Because here in the real world, millions of adults rely on those jobs to get by every day. It really doesn't matter what your impression of these jobs is. People are doing them. And they're supporting themselves and their families off them.

"I just made up..." kind of summarizes your entire argument, doesn't it?

Word.

The credentialed (degree, vocational) don't consider these jobs as "career" jobs but they are. Wishing it to not be true doesn't make it not true.

Uh huh.

Quote
That type of job is not for someone to support themselves on.  It's for a part-time high school or retired/disabled person.
If you people insist on grocery baggers being paid that much, then that position will no longer exist.

Are you sure about that?

I mean, they used to be just that.

And who is saying that unskilled jobs should pay more than skilled jobs?  There has been such wage suppression over the last many decades so that folks like Bezos and the like can be worth billions.  I mean, seriously.  You think it's okay for these companies to pay these wages?  You are paying these wages!  Your taxes are paying for SNAP and welfare and other social services.

I have to say...that people work at grocery stores in other first world countries.  They clean bathrooms.  These jobs have not disappeared.   Talk about reinventing the wheel.

The internet tells me that the average janitor in Denmark gets paid $44,500 a year (US equivalent).
Average grocery store clerk makes $39,000.

If there aren't enough "skilled" jobs for the number of people who need a job, then by definition, there will be people working "unskilled" jobs.  They do not deserve to live in poverty.  Now, we can make the large corporations pay more and give better benefits, or we can use our tax dollars to provide free health care, better education, money for rent and food, whatever, so people aren't living in poverty.

Eh? I didn't write that quote starting with "That type of job..."

bwall

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #104 on: December 17, 2020, 06:55:47 PM »
I am flabbergasted that there are posters here arguing that honest, full time labor shouldn’t pay a living wage because it’s arbitrarily declared “low skill/menial/whatever.” Absolutely flabbergasted.

Agreed.

Once upon a time construction and mining were also considered low skill and menial. Somehow society's perceptions have managed to change over the years.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8956
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #105 on: December 17, 2020, 08:26:36 PM »
I am flabbergasted that there are posters here arguing that honest, full time labor shouldn’t pay a living wage because it’s arbitrarily declared “low skill/menial/whatever.” Absolutely flabbergasted.

Yep. And they call the lefties elitist.

Well said.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2020, 08:28:22 PM »
There's nothing wrong with being elitist.


mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #107 on: December 17, 2020, 09:52:45 PM »
Holy moly, I kind of agree with bloop. Let me go check my temperature!

I do too. Market wages are fine. But we need much more floor raising in the states. Universal healthcare most of all.

I just find rhetoric about certain jobs being career jobs and others being high school jobs silly. A job is a job. It’s not designed by a job engineer to support a household or to give pocket money to a high school kid. So condemning someone to poverty for not working an arbitrary “career job” is shitty.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #108 on: December 18, 2020, 01:58:06 AM »
Quote
job engineer

Would that be a career job, do you think? Or is it low skill and for the poors?

Eowyn_MI

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Michigan
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #109 on: December 18, 2020, 04:57:56 AM »
I’ve lived in the real world, so let me explain the “McDonald’s as a career” situation. There are many people who have very poor education and don’t have the aptitude to improve their educational situation. These people often work menial jobs and they can never improve that situation. Good people believe that these folks deserve to be able to have meals and a roof over their head. Bad people think they should die. End of story.

I agree that these folks should be able to have meals and a roof over their head.

But what happens when they take the money that was meant to pay for food and shelter and spend it on a $1000 smart phone and $300 sneakers instead?

Do we give them extra money for food and shelter then?  Do we take away their ability to choose what they spend money on?  Both of these options seem bad to me.

In other words: who gets to define what is a "living wage"?

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17395
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #110 on: December 18, 2020, 05:07:45 AM »
The fastest way to remove the most people from the paycheck-to-paycheck list would be to insist on a minimum wage that covered a decent living.   Most of the working poor live paycheck to paycheck because they are paid poverty wages, not a decent living.


Cutting off the bottom few rungs of the ladder may help those who can stay on, it doesn't help those who just lost their foot on the ladder.

For someone making $10 going to $15 it's great. On the other hand it will create a permanent unemployed underclass who are relegated to government handouts, charity, and under the table to criminal income sources. It will also accelerate the elimination of lower-paying jobs for automation. At $10/hour an employee may make more sense than a machine. At $15-20, that calculus changes and now that job is gone forever.

Who's going to pay a high schools student $15/hour when they can get someone in their 20s with demonstrated experience? Good luck for that young worker even trying to get their foot in the door to gain experience. Finally, if you start arbitrarily raising wages it will mean inflation which will just restart the cycle of the lowest paid workers not able to afford a "decent living".

That's pretty much our minimum wage here and we've had a labour shortage because demand for workers has been so high.

Got a pulse? You'll make at least $14/hr.

And it hasn't been like that for long, we rapidly raised it by a large chunk twice over a relatively short period of time in the past decade. It has not hurt employment at all in the years it's been in effect.

It was actually $15 for a good while until a new conservative government dropped it down to $14 recently.

Just a few months ago I was hiring virtually completely inexperienced students for $16/hr.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 05:22:56 AM by Malcat »

Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #111 on: December 18, 2020, 05:31:53 AM »
Also, high school kids are less likely to have jobs these days than back in Days of Yore, and when they do it’s not middle class kids saving for a car but kids from low income families who are buying groceries.

catprog

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #112 on: December 18, 2020, 05:44:07 AM »
The fastest way to remove the most people from the paycheck-to-paycheck list would be to insist on a minimum wage that covered a decent living.   Most of the working poor live paycheck to paycheck because they are paid poverty wages, not a decent living.
This minimum wage argument makes absolutely no sense!

Being a cashier at McDonalds, or a dishwasher at Applebee's, are NOT careers that should provide a living wage.
Why are we expecting these types of menial, no-skill jobs to provide a "decent living"?

It would be great if every grocery-bagger in the country could make $50K/year, but it ain't happening.
Either the grocery store goes out of business, a gallon of milk would cost $15, or the bagger job is eliminated (replaced with self-checkout).

So in other-words you think that adults should not be working these jobs and should have jobs that are a career?

I think a large contributor is the slow lifestyle creep that society as a whole has experienced.  All the the following things, good, bad, or indifferent, come at a cost that past generations didn't have to pay.  This list goes back a ways, but it shows how these things build over time.

Video games
Cable TV
Internet
Practically every family owning a midsize/large pet (when I was a kid, people with cats/dogs were in the minority)
Specialty coffee
Cell phones
Snack food
Highly processed food
Eating out on a regular basis
Intercontinental travel/vacations
Mobile phones
Gender reveal parties
"Disposable" clothing
ATM fees
So much disposable decor for various holidays.  Disposable is the key word
Computer
TV
VCR/DVD/Blu-Ray/etc.
Branded merchandise (for example "Star Wars" shoes.  Yeah, I know someone who has them)


Things that would be lifestyle creep in history was reversed:
Living in affordable housing near work.
One parent staying home to look after the kids.

As for the gender reveal party, is that in essence any different from a baby shower?
Is a TV/DVD any different then a radio/phonograph?


I’ve lived in the real world, so let me explain the “McDonald’s as a career” situation. There are many people who have very poor education and don’t have the aptitude to improve their educational situation. These people often work menial jobs and they can never improve that situation. Good people believe that these folks deserve to be able to have meals and a roof over their head. Bad people think they should die. End of story.

I agree that these folks should be able to have meals and a roof over their head.

But what happens when they take the money that was meant to pay for food and shelter and spend it on a $1000 smart phone and $300 sneakers instead?

Do we give them extra money for food and shelter then?  Do we take away their ability to choose what they spend money on?  Both of these options seem bad to me.

In other words: who gets to define what is a "living wage"?

How much is food ,shelter, communication and possibly basic entertainment a month? That is the living wage. 

If they spend it on other things then too bad.

You will notice I include communication, so many jobs these day require mobile phone to be contacted for an interview.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 05:46:27 AM by catprog »

researcher1

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #113 on: December 18, 2020, 06:18:16 AM »
I just find rhetoric about certain jobs being career jobs and others being high school jobs silly. A job is a job.
It’s not designed by a job engineer to support a household or to give pocket money to a high school kid.
So condemning someone to poverty for not working an arbitrary “career job” is shitty.
Not all jobs are created equal. 
- A health care worker job is not the same as a dishwasher job.
- A first responder job is not the same as a grocery bagger job.

There are vast differences in the value provided by specific jobs.
- Some jobs require specialized skills/training/tools and provide a great deal of value.
- Other jobs require zero skills/training/tools and provide very little value.

Your theory that "a job is a job", and that higher value jobs are determined arbitrarily, is simply wrong.
- I'm willing to pay an electrician/plumber $100/hr to work on my house, since I don't have the tools or knowledge to do it myself, and working electric/plumbing is extremely important to keep my house functioning.
- I'm NOT willing to pay a grocery bagger anywhere close to this, because I can quickly/easily do it myself with no tools/training, and it it provides very little added value/utility to my life.

If someone wants to make a career out of washing dishes or bagging groceries, more power to them.
But you shouldn't force me to pay them an artificially high salary, which is disproportionate to the value they provide, just because they decided to support a family with that job.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #114 on: December 18, 2020, 06:21:14 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/more-than-a-quarter-of-fast-food-workers-are-raising-a-child/278424/#:~:text=(The%20Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics,have%20at%20least%20some%20college.

The fact that people are attempting to support families by taking out trash at McDonald's does not change anything.

I would love to quit my stressful job and support my wife/kids by answering the phone at Wal-Mart, for example.
But that is not reality, as such a job doesn't provide the value necessary to justify a $50K or $100K salary.

These no-skill jobs are low-paying for a reason.

I've done low-paying jobs like that and white collar jobs.

The low paying jobs are way, way harder. And you're straw-manning the hell out of this, by the way.

I don't know that the low paying jobs are "way, way harder". I've done menial jobs, and "normal" ish jobs (paper pusher, call centre worker, etc). They were shit. But not particularly hard. Compared to my current job where I sometimes have to get up at 6am to read a brief so I can write submissions and argue it before a judge at 10am all the while juggling emails, text messages and a million conflicting priorities (and then getting bollocked by the judge with a smile on my face), I reckon my menial job was a lot easier. I mean if I could get paid the same doing the paper round or being a retail employee or a call centre worker as I get paid now, I'd find it much easier on mind and body doing 4 hours of the former than what I do now. It would be a lot less stressful too.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #115 on: December 18, 2020, 06:23:38 AM »
All labor should pay a living wage, full stop. If certain industries need to pay additional money on top of that to attract/retain people to less desirable jobs then that’s fine.


Edit: bloop, that post is a great example. Your current job is stressful so they pay you more to retain you. You’ve decided the extra pay is sufficient incentive to keep doing it. I know for myself there have been jobs/promotions that were offered to me and the money will never be green enough to incentivize my acceptance.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 06:28:27 AM by MudPuppy »

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #116 on: December 18, 2020, 06:32:41 AM »
Right, so therefore it's not right (as the other poster said) to categorically say that low paid jobs are way, way harder. Because I suspect on the whole they're not.

If there's a really easy job out there that pays a huge amount of money and doesn't take a lot of skill - then I'm happy to have it. I've been looking around and there aren't many. Maybe president of the united states is one. Haha.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #117 on: December 18, 2020, 06:39:32 AM »
Right, so therefore it's not right (as the other poster said) to categorically say that low paid jobs are way, way harder. Because I suspect on the whole they're not.

If there's a really easy job out there that pays a huge amount of money and doesn't take a lot of skill - then I'm happy to have it. I've been looking around and there aren't many. Maybe president of the united states is one. Haha.

Stock broker. You don't have to be any good at it and you still get paid a lot of money.

bwall

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #118 on: December 18, 2020, 06:59:22 AM »
Right, so therefore it's not right (as the other poster said) to categorically say that low paid jobs are way, way harder. Because I suspect on the whole they're not.

If there's a really easy job out there that pays a huge amount of money and doesn't take a lot of skill - then I'm happy to have it. I've been looking around and there aren't many. Maybe president of the united states is one. Haha.

Stock broker. You don't have to be any good at it and you still get paid a lot of money.

Real estate agent is another. No degree required and massive commissions for very little work.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #119 on: December 18, 2020, 07:00:28 AM »
Right, so therefore it's not right (as the other poster said) to categorically say that low paid jobs are way, way harder. Because I suspect on the whole they're not.

If there's a really easy job out there that pays a huge amount of money and doesn't take a lot of skill - then I'm happy to have it. I've been looking around and there aren't many. Maybe president of the united states is one. Haha.

Ah. What I got from that post was that the poster was referring the low paying jobs they had held or worked closely with were harder rather than a blanket edict.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #120 on: December 18, 2020, 07:03:31 AM »
Right, so therefore it's not right (as the other poster said) to categorically say that low paid jobs are way, way harder. Because I suspect on the whole they're not.

If there's a really easy job out there that pays a huge amount of money and doesn't take a lot of skill - then I'm happy to have it. I've been looking around and there aren't many. Maybe president of the united states is one. Haha.

Stock broker. You don't have to be any good at it and you still get paid a lot of money.

Real estate agent is another. No degree required and massive commissions for very little work.

I don't know anything about being a stock broker.

I suspect real estate agents don't make much money at the end of the day unless they get to quite a senior position...and even then I suspect they don't make much money, in the scheme of things. I'll grant you the job seems pretty easy to me, based on how useless my real estate agent is, but then, I pay her a pittance.

Phenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #121 on: December 18, 2020, 07:11:30 AM »
It must be a lot different where you all live because where I live, you can easily snag a $14/hr job (which raises up to $16/hr after 1 year) and it's been like that for a couple years.  And that's a 1st shift job, you can make $18-$20/hr if you're able to work 2nd/3rd.  As an added reference, a very livable 3 bed 2 bath brick ranch can be had for under $150k in this area.  And there are multiple companies all offering these wages (which keep increasing to attract new employees).
I worked at a couple of these places after high school and during college (back then they were only paying $8.50-$9.50/hr).  The most skill either of these jobs took was putting a part in a machine and pressing a button.  Minimal lifting, the most moving around was walking to and from lunch breaks, and both companies offered benefits from day 1.  The most common reasons people got fired: showing up late on a regular basis, taking long/extra breaks, and playing on their phones while on the shop floor.
The common theme among the paycheck to paycheck employees was living outside of their means (2 new cars with payments, new iPhone the day they hit the shelves, pretty much anything that gave the appearance that they were doing well financially).  Supporting their adult children and/or grandchildren was fairly common as well.

Yes, there are outliers which have been mentioned in this thread that the government should (and probably does) provide assistance.  But having worked with so many of these people (and listening to thousands of calls on financial talk radio), it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of people are doing it to themselves.  We should focus government resources on serving the minority, not making expensive, wide sweeping legislation that helps consumerists buy more junk and doesn't provide enough assistance to those who really need it.

One more anecdote for the thread.  A German Baptist kid that was in my class quit high school at 16, started a driveway sealing company out of the back of his rusted out S-10.  He now has a team that runs his entire business.  He FIRE'd in his early 30's and lives right around the corner from me with his wife and 2 kids in a very efficient 3 bed 2 bath brick ranch.  He didn't come from money or a family with business acumen.  Just drive and determination.  His younger sister graduated high school and started a cleaning business.  She could easily FIRE as well, but cleaning is basically her hobby (so call her a SWAMI).

researcher1

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #122 on: December 18, 2020, 07:15:04 AM »
All labor should pay a living wage, full stop. If certain industries need to pay additional money on top of that to attract/retain people to less desirable jobs then that’s fine.
Simple question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in the United States?

If your mandated "living wage" is higher than the value that job provides, guess what happens?
That grocery bagger job disappears, it goes away entirely. 

People aren't going to pay $15 for a gallon of milk, just to subsidize the person who wants to make a living bagging groceries.
They would rather bag the groceries themselves.

slappy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1453
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #123 on: December 18, 2020, 07:17:40 AM »
I’ve lived in the real world, so let me explain the “McDonald’s as a career” situation. There are many people who have very poor education and don’t have the aptitude to improve their educational situation. These people often work menial jobs and they can never improve that situation. Good people believe that these folks deserve to be able to have meals and a roof over their head. Bad people think they should die. End of story.

I agree that these folks should be able to have meals and a roof over their head.

But what happens when they take the money that was meant to pay for food and shelter and spend it on a $1000 smart phone and $300 sneakers instead?

Do we give them extra money for food and shelter then?  Do we take away their ability to choose what they spend money on?  Both of these options seem bad to me.

In other words: who gets to define what is a "living wage"?

I've asked that twice in this thread already and have not gotten an answer.

Edit: I see someone did respond to you with an answer that makes sense.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 07:20:54 AM by slappy »

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #124 on: December 18, 2020, 07:24:05 AM »
That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.

By the River

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #125 on: December 18, 2020, 07:30:20 AM »
I’ve lived in the real world, so let me explain the “McDonald’s as a career” situation. There are many people who have very poor education and don’t have the aptitude to improve their educational situation. These people often work menial jobs and they can never improve that situation. Good people believe that these folks deserve to be able to have meals and a roof over their head. Bad people think they should die. End of story.

This is 100% false. Just because you used McDonalds as an example.
I am that guy that actually was a GM for McDonalds for 5 yrs and I was in the McDonalds business at 16 and left for good in 2005.
McDonalds is one of the easiest if not easiest place to improve yourself in the "dead-end" job world.
The reason is there is such a high turnover in the business that they are always looking to good people to improve their training to become managers, GM and even owners/operators.
You don't know how many times I've come across a good workers and tell them to apply themselves and continue their training to become something more. Most don't listen and continue with their menial jobs merry go around.
I've seen so many people who ended up being GM(running their own store) in 2-3 years time. A friend of mine worked at McDonalds since HS and never bother going to college. He made it a career and is now really high up making $100K+. A close friend of mine is an owner/operator of 28+ McDonalds so I pretty much knew that business inside and out.
I agree that working menial jobs at a small business will probably won't get you anywhere but for a large business, you can easily improve your situation with some dedication.
The biggest obstacles I see are people with kids working in these menial jobs. It's a rut that's really hard to get out off.

My childhood best friend went to college for one semester and decided that wasn't for him.  He had worked at our small town's new Walmart for minimum wage the last year of high school and during college so he could have drinking money.  Decided to go full-time at Walmart after dropping out.  Busted his ass and moved up through that store.  Then joined the group that set up new stores.  Went around the country staying at locations for a few months to make sure the new stores were up to par.  Got a store manager job then another then finally managed a Super Walmart with ~300 employees working for him.  At 50, he retired, bought a house on the lake and half of a country hardware store/bait shop where he works two or three days/week and fishes/enjoys life the rest of the week.  He's lived the FIRE mindset but did it from a retail minimum wage starting point rather than a engineer/software/college graduate one.   For him, the important steps to FIRE were that he worked hard and maxed his 401K until he was married and had kids then put in enough afterwards for the match.

researcher1

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #126 on: December 18, 2020, 07:39:39 AM »
That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.
You still haven't answered the question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in your area of the United States?

You are saying that $15/hour is not enough, which equates to over $30,000, for bagging groceries!
So how much should they make?  $40,000?  $50,000?

You can't possibly think stores could pay grocery baggers that much, can you?

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #127 on: December 18, 2020, 07:41:25 AM »
For what its worth, I'm in favor of companies paying market wages. The government should take care of providing for welfare. It doesn't make sense to pay a teen and a single mom both the wage it takes to raise a kid. If there's a single mom working a low paying job, the government should step in to fill the gap.

But the notion that some jobs are "career jobs" and others "aren't meant" to pay a living wage is silly. Life would be a whole lot better if we did away with this post-hoc rationalization and just mandated minimum standards of living for all Americans in our first world country.

I tend to agree with this. What is a living wage for a 22 year old single person that can live at home or with friends/roommates vs. what is a living wage for a 34 yr old single mother of 2 are drastically different. I look at what I would consider a "living wage" where I live for a single individual willing to get roommates and to me it's around $15k/yr. But that's clearly not the case if you are a single mother of 2/3/4 kids.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #128 on: December 18, 2020, 07:44:35 AM »
That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.
You still haven't answered the question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in your area of the United States?

You are saying that $15/hour is not enough, which equates to over $30,000, for bagging groceries!
So how much should they make?  $40,000?  $50,000?

You can't possibly think stores could pay grocery baggers that much, can you?


They can.

LoanShark

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #129 on: December 18, 2020, 07:45:45 AM »
Personal responsibility matters, huh?

Who knew that a "massage therapist" wasn't a good career path if you want economic stability?

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #130 on: December 18, 2020, 07:46:55 AM »
Personal responsibility matters, huh?

Who knew that a "massage therapist" wasn't a good career path if you want economic stability?

People only say things like this when they think they are hot stuff.

Paper Chaser

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1851
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #131 on: December 18, 2020, 07:47:42 AM »
That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.

Is there any historical precedent for entry level workers being able to support median living standards on their income? The buying power of an average American peaked in the early 70s. Were there people making minimum wage 50 years ago that could afford an average apartment on their own, or support a family flipping burgers, bagging groceries, doing general labor?

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #132 on: December 18, 2020, 07:51:35 AM »
Not universally, but yes. Income inequality has only increased.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #133 on: December 18, 2020, 07:52:59 AM »
That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.

Is there any historical precedent for entry level workers being able to support median living standards on their income? The buying power of an average American peaked in the early 70s. Were there people making minimum wage 50 years ago that could afford an average apartment on their own, or support a family flipping burgers, bagging groceries, doing general labor?

There was a popular TV series in the 1980s called "Married With Children" where the patriarch of the family supported his family in a house on one income as a shoe salesman at a store he didn't own.

Eowyn_MI

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Michigan
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #134 on: December 18, 2020, 07:53:30 AM »
I’ve lived in the real world, so let me explain the “McDonald’s as a career” situation. There are many people who have very poor education and don’t have the aptitude to improve their educational situation. These people often work menial jobs and they can never improve that situation. Good people believe that these folks deserve to be able to have meals and a roof over their head. Bad people think they should die. End of story.

I agree that these folks should be able to have meals and a roof over their head.

But what happens when they take the money that was meant to pay for food and shelter and spend it on a $1000 smart phone and $300 sneakers instead?

Do we give them extra money for food and shelter then?  Do we take away their ability to choose what they spend money on?  Both of these options seem bad to me.

In other words: who gets to define what is a "living wage"?

How much is food ,shelter, communication and possibly basic entertainment a month? That is the living wage. 

If they spend it on other things then too bad.

You will notice I include communication, so many jobs these day require mobile phone to be contacted for an interview.

It sounds good when you put it like that.  People who are working hard at a full time job should be able to afford food, shelter and communication. 

I just start thinking of all the circumstances that will affect the calculations.  Examples: How much is their shelter allowed to cost?  Do they just get the average cost of rent in their city no matter where they choose to live?  Should they be able to support children on their wages?  If so, how many children are acceptable?  How much is their food budget?  Do they get rice and beans that are cooked at home or do they get takeout every night?  You see, if the government sets the wage then it is basically dictating all of these things. 

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
  • Age: 37
  • Location: RVA
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #135 on: December 18, 2020, 07:55:07 AM »
All labor should pay a living wage, full stop. If certain industries need to pay additional money on top of that to attract/retain people to less desirable jobs then that’s fine.
Simple question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in the United States?

A conservative starting place would be 1.5X the poverty line for an individual. I think that’s a good starting point because the US government uses that measure for most social programs like SNAP, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. Currently, the poverty line in the US is about $13k for an individual, so an improved minimum wage would net someone around $20k/year. That’s roughly $10/hour (less than 50% increase over what it is today).

If your mandated "living wage" is higher than the value that job provides, guess what happens?
That grocery bagger job disappears, it goes away entirely. 

People aren't going to pay $15 for a gallon of milk, just to subsidize the person who wants to make a living bagging groceries.
They would rather bag the groceries themselves.

I’d love to see an explanation for how milk prices increase ~500% from a portion of labor costs increasing, at most, ~40%.


researcher1

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #136 on: December 18, 2020, 08:11:54 AM »
A conservative starting place would be 1.5X the poverty line for an individual. I think that’s a good starting point because the US government uses that measure for most social programs like SNAP, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. Currently, the poverty line in the US is about $13k for an individual, so an improved minimum wage would net someone around $20k/year. That’s roughly $10/hour (less than 50% increase over what it is today).
I think your $20K/year, or $10/hour, is generally reasonable.
I'd guess that $10/hr jobs are quite attainable in all but the lowest COL areas.
I live in a fairly low COL area and could walk out my door right now and get 5 jobs on the spot paying $10/hr.

The problem is people like MudPuppy think these jobs should pay $50,000 a year, which just isn't realistic.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17395
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #137 on: December 18, 2020, 08:12:10 AM »
That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.
You still haven't answered the question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in your area of the United States?

You are saying that $15/hour is not enough, which equates to over $30,000, for bagging groceries!
So how much should they make?  $40,000?  $50,000?

You can't possibly think stores could pay grocery baggers that much, can you?


They can.

I haven't seen a dedicated grocery bagger since the 90s, but whatever.

As for low skill jobs, salaries don't actually scale with skill or value provided by the employee, if that was the case then social workers would be compensated far better.

Jobs are paid what it takes to reasonably retain people in them and fit their budgets. I've kept some people at very low pay for very skilled work because I knew I could keep them at that rate, I've also paid some fucking morons a higher wage than I've ever paid far superior staff in the past because there's a labour shortage and that's what it takes to keep the business running.

It is what it is.

Some of the MOST mindless labour is paid quite handsomely specifically because it's unbearably repetitive and dull. I was making far less money as a fashion stylist (aka retail sales person) in a high end clothing store, which required a rather daunting amount of product and customer service knowledge than I did when I worked in a factory making scotch tape dispensers. $7 vs $13.

Why? Because it was hard to get people to mindlessly make scotch tape dispensers at weird hours, and meanwhile EVERY young woman wanted to work at this particularly elite clothing store. I mean, that's where I met my husband, so it was worth the pay cut for me, plus I wanted to blow my fucking brains out making tape dispensers.

It's the same way chefs are generally paid total shit, because there's never a shortage of new young chefs willing to be underpaid and abused in the restaurant world.

I know a guy who made a fortune in the summers working the floor at a yeast factory doing overnights. And he got benefits!!!

How much someone gets paid for their work has so much more to do with demand than it does with the quality of their skill set. Countless PhDs can attest to that.

So sure, we can muse about what the hypothetical "grocery bagger" should be valued at, but at the end of day, what they are paid will completely depend on how much the grocery store needs them to function and how replaceable they are.
NOT how skilled their labour is.

LoanShark

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #138 on: December 18, 2020, 08:17:00 AM »
Personal responsibility matters, huh?

Who knew that a "massage therapist" wasn't a good career path if you want economic stability?

People only say things like this when they think they are hot stuff.

"Hot stuff" enough to know that a career in massage therapy wouldn't result in the quality of life I desired.

Phenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #139 on: December 18, 2020, 08:19:43 AM »
If your mandated "living wage" is higher than the value that job provides, guess what happens?
That grocery bagger job disappears, it goes away entirely. 

People aren't going to pay $15 for a gallon of milk, just to subsidize the person who wants to make a living bagging groceries.
They would rather bag the groceries themselves.

I’d love to see an explanation for how milk prices increase ~500% from a portion of labor costs increasing, at most, ~40%.

I would say $15/gallon milk is hyperbole to make a point.  If wages are increased above the market rate, it's not going to come out of the company's profit, it's going to come out of yours.  But guess who also has to pay more for their groceries (and every other staple) now, the employee who was just "helped" by a government mandated pay raise.  So all of that extra money the y were going to be making is now going right back into the pockets of the shareholders (the rich).  It's much like the sweatshop owners who also owned the housing of their employees.  Sure they paid their employees more when the government got involved, but they also raised their rental rates.  People inclined to make money & get ahead will find a way to do so.  Those inclined to play the victim will waste their lives sitting back waiting for someone else to solve a problem.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #140 on: December 18, 2020, 08:20:01 AM »
A conservative starting place would be 1.5X the poverty line for an individual. I think that’s a good starting point because the US government uses that measure for most social programs like SNAP, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. Currently, the poverty line in the US is about $13k for an individual, so an improved minimum wage would net someone around $20k/year. That’s roughly $10/hour (less than 50% increase over what it is today).
I think your $20K/year, or $10/hour, is generally reasonable.
I'd guess that $10/hr jobs are quite attainable in all but the lowest COL areas.
I live in a fairly low COL area and could walk out my door right now and get 5 jobs on the spot paying $10/hr.

The problem is people like MudPuppy think these jobs should pay $50,000 a year, which just isn't realistic.

I don’t recall saying that the bar for a living wage is 50k

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #141 on: December 18, 2020, 08:21:12 AM »
Personal responsibility matters, huh?

Who knew that a "massage therapist" wasn't a good career path if you want economic stability?

People only say things like this when they think they are hot stuff.

"Hot stuff" enough to know that a career in massage therapy wouldn't result in the quality of life I desired.

You are very special.

LoanShark

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #142 on: December 18, 2020, 08:25:12 AM »
Personal responsibility matters, huh?

Who knew that a "massage therapist" wasn't a good career path if you want economic stability?

People only say things like this when they think they are hot stuff.

"Hot stuff" enough to know that a career in massage therapy wouldn't result in the quality of life I desired.

You are very special.

I agree. :)

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #143 on: December 18, 2020, 08:29:42 AM »
A conservative starting place would be 1.5X the poverty line for an individual. I think that’s a good starting point because the US government uses that measure for most social programs like SNAP, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. Currently, the poverty line in the US is about $13k for an individual, so an improved minimum wage would net someone around $20k/year. That’s roughly $10/hour (less than 50% increase over what it is today).
I think your $20K/year, or $10/hour, is generally reasonable.
I'd guess that $10/hr jobs are quite attainable in all but the lowest COL areas.
I live in a fairly low COL area and could walk out my door right now and get 5 jobs on the spot paying $10/hr.

The problem is people like MudPuppy think these jobs should pay $50,000 a year, which just isn't realistic.

I don’t recall saying that the bar for a living wage is 50k

That’s because researcher1’s entire argument is built on a mountain of straw men.

researcher1

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #144 on: December 18, 2020, 08:31:15 AM »
I don’t recall saying that the bar for a living wage is 50k
I asked multiple times and you've refused to answer.

You have stated that $31,200 was not enough for a "living wage" in your area.
So I asked if $40K or $50K was sufficient for a grocery bagger...you indicated that grocery stores could certainly pay this much.

If you have another number in mind, feel free to share.  Otherwise we are left to interpret the number from your posts.


yachi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #145 on: December 18, 2020, 08:32:25 AM »
That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.
You still haven't answered the question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in your area of the United States?

You are saying that $15/hour is not enough, which equates to over $30,000, for bagging groceries!
So how much should they make?  $40,000?  $50,000?

You can't possibly think stores could pay grocery baggers that much, can you?

I'll answer because I'm tired of seeing the same job example over and over again.  I think in my area of the United States, grocery baggers should get paid $0.  And you know what?  They do get paid $0. 
Local grocery store: no baggers.
Local Walmart: no baggers.
Local Target: no baggers.
Second local grocery store: no baggers.
Third local grocery store: no baggers, also no bags...

You bag them yourself, or wait for the cashier to be bag them while you're paying.  Sometimes if a nearby cashier is not busy, they will come over and bag.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #146 on: December 18, 2020, 08:33:31 AM »
Quote
You have stated that $31,200 was not enough for a "living wage" in your area.
So I asked if $40K or $50K was sufficient for a grocery bagger...you indicated that grocery stores could certainly pay this much.

That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.

Interestingly enough, I can’t find where I said 15/h wasn’t a living wage in my area.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #147 on: December 18, 2020, 08:34:02 AM »
I don’t recall saying that the bar for a living wage is 50k
I asked multiple times and you've refused to answer.

You have stated that $31,200 was not enough for a "living wage" in your area.
So I asked if $40K or $50K was sufficient for a grocery bagger...you indicated that grocery stores could certainly pay this much.

If you have another number in mind, feel free to share.  Otherwise we are left to interpret the number from your posts.

To be fair, the entire point of this movement is that you don't need $50,000/year to live well.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #148 on: December 18, 2020, 08:36:20 AM »
If your mandated "living wage" is higher than the value that job provides, guess what happens?
That grocery bagger job disappears, it goes away entirely. 

People aren't going to pay $15 for a gallon of milk, just to subsidize the person who wants to make a living bagging groceries.
They would rather bag the groceries themselves.

I’d love to see an explanation for how milk prices increase ~500% from a portion of labor costs increasing, at most, ~40%.

I would say $15/gallon milk is hyperbole to make a point.  If wages are increased above the market rate, it's not going to come out of the company's profit, it's going to come out of yours.  But guess who also has to pay more for their groceries (and every other staple) now, the employee who was just "helped" by a government mandated pay raise.  So all of that extra money the y were going to be making is now going right back into the pockets of the shareholders (the rich).  It's much like the sweatshop owners who also owned the housing of their employees.  Sure they paid their employees more when the government got involved, but they also raised their rental rates.  People inclined to make money & get ahead will find a way to do so.  Those inclined to play the victim will waste their lives sitting back waiting for someone else to solve a problem.

It takes very little to raise wages if the price increase is passed directly to the workers.

Paying an additional penny per pound for tomatoes, if that penny flowed to picker wages, would almost double their wages. Yes, we'd have to pay an extra $.03?/week to lift a picker out of poverty. I can afford that. You can too. So can the picker who now makes $12k more/year.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/

Quote from: natgeo
If farm worker wages go up by 47 percent, grocery bills would go up just $21.15 a year, or $1.76 a month.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 08:39:34 AM by bacchi »

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation
« Reply #149 on: December 18, 2020, 08:41:36 AM »
If your mandated "living wage" is higher than the value that job provides, guess what happens?
That grocery bagger job disappears, it goes away entirely. 

People aren't going to pay $15 for a gallon of milk, just to subsidize the person who wants to make a living bagging groceries.
They would rather bag the groceries themselves.

I’d love to see an explanation for how milk prices increase ~500% from a portion of labor costs increasing, at most, ~40%.

I would say $15/gallon milk is hyperbole to make a point.  If wages are increased above the market rate, it's not going to come out of the company's profit, it's going to come out of yours.  But guess who also has to pay more for their groceries (and every other staple) now, the employee who was just "helped" by a government mandated pay raise.  So all of that extra money the y were going to be making is now going right back into the pockets of the shareholders (the rich).  It's much like the sweatshop owners who also owned the housing of their employees.  Sure they paid their employees more when the government got involved, but they also raised their rental rates.  People inclined to make money & get ahead will find a way to do so.  Those inclined to play the victim will waste their lives sitting back waiting for someone else to solve a problem.

It takes very little to raise wages if the price increase is passed directly to the workers.

Paying an additional penny per pound for tomatoes, if that penny flowed to picker wages, would almost double their wages. Yes, we'd have to pay an extra $.03?/week to lift a picker out of poverty. I can afford that. You can too. So can the picker who now makes $12k more/year.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/

Quote from: natgeo
If farm worker wages go up by 47 percent, grocery bills would go up just $21.15 a year, or $1.76 a month.

It would be nice if American workers could live the lifestyle that European workers get to enjoy. It was really eye-opening when the internet came along and we all learned that European workers had four weeks of paid vacation per year which they spent on vacation in Spain.