Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation

[Zamboni]

The military remains a valid choice for anyone willing.

Not true.  Not everyone is able, and the military doesn't just accept everyone.

I'll third that.

My nephew was recently rejected by the Army for sub par hearing in one ear. He had no idea his hearing wasn't perfect!

[marty998]

This is as much fun as watching people argue whether the glass is half full or half empty after you point out that it's at half capacity. ;)

Oh I see you're one of those it's *at* half capacity types. Better than those grumps who argue that it's *missing* half it's capacity.

The optimist and the pessimist were so busy arguing that they didn't notice the opportunist drinking the glass of orange juice.

[DadJokes]

The average savings rate increased dramatically early on in the pandemic (no idea if that has continued or stopped). While some of that may be due to daycares being closed and no more commuting, I think it still shows that a lot of people can save more money when they have to.

I would venture a guess that more than half of people who are "paycheck-to-paycheck" are that way because they spend money unnecessarily, rather than because they don't earn enough. We live pretty lavishly, and our household expenses are below the median household income.

Are there problems with the system? Certainly. Health care in the US is absurd, and while it's possible for many to go to college at little to no cost, most choose not to put in that work, leading to skyrocketing costs there as well. Even so, most of the trouble people face is self-inflicted.

Look at the budget for Rhonda Alvarez in the article. In the middle of a pandemic, when her income is cut drastically, she is still spending over $500/month on "other," which includes home improvement and video streaming services. Is that really necessary?

[mm1970]

https://nypost.com/2020/02/04/more-americans-are-spending-over-half-their-income-on-housing/

[valaraukar]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

[RetiredAt63]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

That was when there were lots of people that age.  Demographics change. 

[GuitarStv]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

That's progress for you.

[Metalcat]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

I also seriously question the assertion that minimum wage jobs used to mostly be staffed by teenagers?

When? When is this time supposed to have been?

20 years ago I was part of staffing many minimum wage jobs back when I worked at a staffing agency, and we weren't typically staffing teenagers. Sure, for some jobs we were, but we interviewed literally thousands of middle aged people for many minimum wage jobs.

I feel like the people saying this don't quite understand how many types of jobs are minimum wage. Or even worse, how many jobs are just a hair above minimum wage, and thereby justify substantial increases in skill, experience or willingness to work crazy hours.

Back when I was working for minimum wage, which was $6.85, I got promoted to "key holder" at my retail store for $0.50 bump, which required me to work until 10pm closing every shift and work overnights every few weeks to change the store. There's no way highschool kids were doing that.
My rent alone for a room in a shitty apartment was over half my income at the time. The next step up was manager, which was salaried and worked out to just under $9/hr for full time, but required a ton of unpaid overtime, and needed a minimum of 5 years of experience at the store or experience having managed a similar store. We had a staff of about 20, and only two were senior highschool students who worked weekend shifts.

People did and do make careers of working in customer service and minimum wage sets the baseline and therefore the basis of all of the salaries just above it. So store managers, restaurant managers, hotel managers. These aren't kids, but their salaries are largely determined by being a certain amount above whatever minimum wage is.

Huge chunks of the economy are working at or just above minimum wage. These aren't mostly silly jobs that require no effort that kids can do for pocket change.

Also, where I live, there is a separate and lower minimum wage for teenagers, so that solves that issue.

[TheContinentalOp]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

I also seriously question the assertion that minimum wage jobs used to mostly be staffed by teenagers?

When? When is this time supposed to have been?

20 years ago I was part of staffing many minimum wage jobs back when I worked at a staffing agency, and we weren't typically staffing teenagers. Sure, for some jobs we were, but we interviewed literally thousands of middle aged people for many minimum wage jobs.

I feel like the people saying this don't quite understand how many types of jobs are minimum wage. Or even worse, how many jobs are just a hair above minimum wage, and thereby justify substantial increases in skill, experience or willingness to work crazy hours.

Back when I was working for minimum wage, which was $6.85, I got promoted to "key holder" at my retail store for $0.50 bump, which required me to work until 10pm closing every shift and work overnights every few weeks to change the store. There's no way highschool kids were doing that.
My rent alone for a room in a shitty apartment was over half my income at the time. The next step up was manager, which was salaried and worked out to just under $9/hr for full time, but required a ton of unpaid overtime, and needed a minimum of 5 years of experience at the store or experience having managed a similar store. We had a staff of about 20, and only two were senior highschool students who worked weekend shifts.

People did and do make careers of working in customer service and minimum wage sets the baseline and therefore the basis of all of the salaries just above it. So store managers, restaurant managers, hotel managers. These aren't kids, but their salaries are largely determined by being a certain amount above whatever minimum wage is.

Huge chunks of the economy are working at or just above minimum wage. These aren't mostly silly jobs that require no effort that kids can do for pocket change.

Also, where I live, there is a separate and lower minimum wage for teenagers, so that solves that issue.

When I worked in fast food as a teenager in 1985, I started at the minimum wage of $3.35/hr. Every worker in  the place was a teen or in college (this was a college town) including one of the asst managers. The only exceptions were the manager who was salaried and the other asst. manager who had an hourly rate (not sure what he was paid) and was angling to get promoted to manager at a different location.

[Metalcat]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

I also seriously question the assertion that minimum wage jobs used to mostly be staffed by teenagers?

When? When is this time supposed to have been?

20 years ago I was part of staffing many minimum wage jobs back when I worked at a staffing agency, and we weren't typically staffing teenagers. Sure, for some jobs we were, but we interviewed literally thousands of middle aged people for many minimum wage jobs.

I feel like the people saying this don't quite understand how many types of jobs are minimum wage. Or even worse, how many jobs are just a hair above minimum wage, and thereby justify substantial increases in skill, experience or willingness to work crazy hours.

Back when I was working for minimum wage, which was $6.85, I got promoted to "key holder" at my retail store for $0.50 bump, which required me to work until 10pm closing every shift and work overnights every few weeks to change the store. There's no way highschool kids were doing that.
My rent alone for a room in a shitty apartment was over half my income at the time. The next step up was manager, which was salaried and worked out to just under $9/hr for full time, but required a ton of unpaid overtime, and needed a minimum of 5 years of experience at the store or experience having managed a similar store. We had a staff of about 20, and only two were senior highschool students who worked weekend shifts.

People did and do make careers of working in customer service and minimum wage sets the baseline and therefore the basis of all of the salaries just above it. So store managers, restaurant managers, hotel managers. These aren't kids, but their salaries are largely determined by being a certain amount above whatever minimum wage is.

Huge chunks of the economy are working at or just above minimum wage. These aren't mostly silly jobs that require no effort that kids can do for pocket change.

Also, where I live, there is a separate and lower minimum wage for teenagers, so that solves that issue.

When I worked in fast food as a teenager in 1985, I started at the minimum wage of $3.35/hr. Every worker in  the place was a teen or in college (this was a college town) including one of the asst managers. The only exceptions were the manager who was salaried and the other asst. manager who had an hourly rate (not sure what he was paid) and was angling to get promoted to manager at a different location.

I'm sure there are plenty of minimum wage jobs staffed with students. My point was not that there aren't, but that there are A TON that are staffed with adults.

The thing is that teenagers are most likely to work in the minimum wage environments that are most likely to hire teenagers, so their lived experience is that minimum wage jobs are staffed largely with teenagers.

Meanwhile, they're completely unaware of the vast job market of minimum wage jobs staffed by primarily by adults.

[ender]

Luckily in this case the data is pretty clear about the demographics of minimum wage jobs.

Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 8 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm

One thing to note: this only talks about federal USA minimum wage and a lot of states have their own minimum wage requirements, so it's much more applicable demographic wise for the states that they list, as those don't:

State of residence. The states with the highest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the minimum wage were in the South: Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Virginia (all were about 4 percent). The states with the lowest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were in the West or Midwest: California, Washington, Montana, and Minnesota (all were less than 1 percent). It should be noted that many states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the federal minimum wage. (See tables 2 and 3.)

[Paper Chaser]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

Are there many "minimum wage factory jobs" anymore? I live in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I often drive past lots of warehouses and factories (including my employer). Some of these are small places that might employ a couple of dozen people, while others are massive with hundreds or even thousands of employees. For several months now, most of these businesses have had large signage out front that says 'help wanted' or 'now hiring' and they're starting people at $14-19/hr.
Any US citizen that can pass a drug test (and maybe a background check at the larger places) can start out making at least double the minimum wage in my area if they're willing to work full time hours in an industrial environment.

[Metalcat]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

Are there many "minimum wage factory jobs" anymore? I live in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I often drive past lots of warehouses and factories (including my employer). Some of these are small places that might employ a couple of dozen people, while others are massive with hundreds or even thousands of employees. For several months now, most of these businesses have had large signage out front that says 'help wanted' or 'now hiring' and they're starting people at $14-19/hr.
Any US citizen that can pass a drug test (and maybe a background check at the larger places) can start out making at least double the minimum wage in my area if they're willing to work full time hours in an industrial environment.

Where I live, these jobs tend to be unionized.

[bmjohnson35]

I will avoid generalizations about the masses and stick to observations of friends and family I know or have known in my lifetime.  I have always been amazed at how poorly many people manage their money, regardless of their income level. I have known people who have 6-figure incomes and they live paycheck-to-paycheck and have massive debt.  I know someone right now who is trying to live on minimum wage and they think spending $230 monthly for their cell phone package is a sensible.  They presently have free housing and only one of the two are working.  I have a friend who is in his late 70's, who buy's a new car every 5 yrs.  He's essentially had a car payment for decades.  Despite trying to advise differently, we watch our kids spend-spend-spend.  All of them of have some level of cc debt, yet they continue to spend foolishly.  I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  I see a culture in America where many feel entitled to prosperity and they don't want to wait for their desires. 

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs. This is what I was taught as a teenager and many would probably say it's a reflection of my privilege growing up.  The escalation of healthcare, education and housing have all been substantial during my lifetime. All three have largley out-paced income increases over the year.  Fortunately the youth today have easy access to more technology/information than previous generations.  If you are starting out as a young adult today, you do have to be a bit more strategic.  Has the American Dream died? No, but this generation has different challenges than previous generations and don't have the unprescedented advantage(s) that our parents/grandparents had following WWII. 

 

[Metalcat]

I will avoid generalizations about the masses and stick to observations of friends and family I know or have known in my lifetime.  I have always been amazed at how poorly many people manage their money, regardless of their income level. I have known people who have 6-figure incomes and they live paycheck-to-paycheck and have massive debt.  I know someone right now who is trying to live on minimum wage and they think spending $230 monthly for their cell phone package is a sensible.  They presently have free housing and only one of the two are working.  I have a friend who is in his late 70's, who buy's a new car every 5 yrs.  He's essentially had a car payment for decades.  Despite trying to advise differently, we watch our kids spend-spend-spend.  All of them of have some level of cc debt, yet they continue to spend foolishly.  I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  I see a culture in America where many feel entitled to prosperity and they don't want to wait for their desires. 

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs. This is what I was taught as a teenager and many would probably say it's a reflection of my privilege growing up.  The escalation of healthcare, education and housing have all been substantial during my lifetime. All three have largley out-paced income increases over the year.  Fortunately the youth today have easy access to more technology/information than previous generations.  If you are starting out as a young adult today, you do have to be a bit more strategic.  Has the American Dream died? No, but this generation has different challenges than previous generations and don't have the unprescedented advantage(s) that our parents/grandparents had following WWII.

If you were raised in a family and with friends who don't survive on minimum wage jobs, then I'm not at all surprised that this is how you grew up to view minimum wage jobs.

Where I grew up, half of the families in the community survived on minimum wage service jobs.

[SunnyDays]

Another strategy some companies use to keep people at lower income is to pay somewhat above minimum wage but then cut hours to just below 40 so that they don’t have to pay benefits.  It’s common in grocery stores for sure.

[TheFrenchCat]

Another strategy some companies use to keep people at lower income is to pay somewhat above minimum wage but then cut hours to just below 40 so that they don’t have to pay benefits.  It’s common in grocery stores for sure.

This is what my work does.  You get paid $10-14 per "hour" but you can't work more than 129 hours a month.  We at least get 401k match, which I'm grateful for since I've never seen it at a part time job.  (Hour is in quotes because it's technically more complicated than that, but for the purpose of this discussion the hourly wage works.) 

[Zamboni]

Look at the budget for Rhonda Alvarez in the article. In the middle of a pandemic, when her income is cut drastically, she is still spending over $500/month on "other," which includes home improvement and video streaming services. Is that really necessary?

I'm gonna to guess that her "home improvement" was something like fixing a broken toilet or the air conditioning. In my budget spreadsheet, that would be put in the home maintenance and improvement category since I don't have two separate categories. If it wasn't something like that, then I agree it should have been put off.

The lady currently only has an income of about $1000/month, though. Are we really going to pick on her? She's so far underwater than she's clearly entered the "what the hell" phase of nothing matters anyway. She'll just spend and spend until she declares bankruptcy again, probably. And will it be all her fault? Really? I mean, do the banks who extended her all of this credit bear any responsibility at all? One of my friends who moved here from South America said one of the things no one warned him about was how much EXCESS credit he would be offered in the USA. It annoys me that I indirectly pay to bail out the banks which consistently and repeatedly extend way too much credit to people.

We completely agree that streaming services should be killed, though, unless you are flush. It doesn't make sense to me that people don't immediately do this, or at least only have one service to keep them from going insane during a rainy workless day (like EITHER Netflix or Prime, pick your favorite, not both and certainly not all these extra ones like Disney Plus and HULU and everything else). Paying for TV entertainment is one of the most wasteful things people do. When I was broke, I had a used VCR/DVD players and an antennae, which actually pick up a lot more of the stations than people think. I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox local affiliates with my current cheap antennae.

[OtherJen]

Look at the budget for Rhonda Alvarez in the article. In the middle of a pandemic, when her income is cut drastically, she is still spending over $500/month on "other," which includes home improvement and video streaming services. Is that really necessary?

I'm gonna to guess that her "home improvement" was something like fixing a broken toilet or the air conditioning. In my budget spreadsheet, that would be put in the home maintenance and improvement category since I don't have two separate categories. If it wasn't something like that, then I agree it should have been put off.

The lady currently only has an income of about $1000/month, though. Are we really going to pick on her? She's so far underwater than she's clearly entered the "what the hell" phase of nothing matters anyway. She'll just spend and spend until she declares bankruptcy again, probably. And will it be all her fault? Really? I mean, do the banks who extended her all of this credit bear any responsibility at all? One of my friends who moved here from South America said one of the things no one warned him about was how much EXCESS credit he would be offered in the USA. It annoys me that I indirectly pay to bail out the banks which consistently and repeatedly extend way too much credit to people.

We completely agree that streaming services should be killed, though, unless you are flush. It doesn't make sense to me that people don't immediately do this, or at least only have one service to keep them from going insane during a rainy workless day (like EITHER Netflix or Prime, pick your favorite, not both and certainly not all these extra ones like Disney Plus and HULU and everything else). Paying for TV entertainment is one of the most wasteful things people do. When I was broke, I had a used VCR/DVD players and an antennae, which actually pick up a lot more of the stations than people think. I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox local affiliates with my current cheap antennae.

Side note: Hulu is only $5.99 per month and would still work if you lived in a rental and weren't able to install an antenna on your roof (or had a favorite show but weren't able to watch when it aired and couldn't afford cable/DVR). That would be my choice over the much more expensive Netflix or Prime.

[bmjohnson35]

One of my friends who moved here from South America said one of the things no one warned him about was how much EXCESS credit he would be offered in the USA. It annoys me that I indirectly pay to bail out the banks which consistently and repeatedly extend way too much credit to people.

[/quote]

This reminds me of one of our kids.  We helped her with tuition to ensure she didn't finish college with debt. The banks offered her credit cards and she used them to fund her social life.  When we found out about it later, she "explained" this is what everyone in college does. If I remember correctly, she accumulated around $5k in high interest debt.    The banks would actually send reps to the college and offer to help them build their credit.  It's like drug dealers giving out "free samples" to children.  Needless to say, we were rather pissed/frustrated.  In hindsight, it could have been worse and served as a relatively low-cost lessons learned for her. It took her some time to pay them off.

[Zamboni]

Look at the budget for Rhonda Alvarez in the article. In the middle of a pandemic, when her income is cut drastically, she is still spending over $500/month on "other," which includes home improvement and video streaming services. Is that really necessary?

I'm gonna to guess that her "home improvement" was something like fixing a broken toilet or the air conditioning. In my budget spreadsheet, that would be put in the home maintenance and improvement category since I don't have two separate categories. If it wasn't something like that, then I agree it should have been put off.

The lady currently only has an income of about $1000/month, though. Are we really going to pick on her? She's so far underwater than she's clearly entered the "what the hell" phase of nothing matters anyway. She'll just spend and spend until she declares bankruptcy again, probably. And will it be all her fault? Really? I mean, do the banks who extended her all of this credit bear any responsibility at all? One of my friends who moved here from South America said one of the things no one warned him about was how much EXCESS credit he would be offered in the USA. It annoys me that I indirectly pay to bail out the banks which consistently and repeatedly extend way too much credit to people.

We completely agree that streaming services should be killed, though, unless you are flush. It doesn't make sense to me that people don't immediately do this, or at least only have one service to keep them from going insane during a rainy workless day (like EITHER Netflix or Prime, pick your favorite, not both and certainly not all these extra ones like Disney Plus and HULU and everything else). Paying for TV entertainment is one of the most wasteful things people do. When I was broke, I had a used VCR/DVD players and an antennae, which actually pick up a lot more of the stations than people think. I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox local affiliates with my current cheap antennae.

Side note: Hulu is only $5.99 per month and would still work if you lived in a rental and weren't able to install an antenna on your roof (or had a favorite show but weren't able to watch when it aired and couldn't afford cable/DVR). That would be my choice over the much more expensive Netflix or Prime.

Good point, maybe Hulu is the best deal.

When I first got my antennae, I was renting a ground floor apartment in a 3 story apartment building. It worked just fine near the window. Now they make much better round ones that adhere to your window like a plate sized yellow post it note.

[Zamboni]

One of my friends who moved here from South America said one of the things no one warned him about was how much EXCESS credit he would be offered in the USA. It annoys me that I indirectly pay to bail out the banks which consistently and repeatedly extend way too much credit to people.

This reminds me of one of our kids.  We helped her with tuition to ensure she didn't finish college with debt. The banks offered her credit cards and she used them to fund her social life.  When we found out about it later, she "explained" this is what everyone in college does. If I remember correctly, she accumulated around $5k in high interest debt.    The banks would actually send reps to the college and offer to help them build their credit.  It's like drug dealers giving out "free samples" to children.  Needless to say, we were rather pissed/frustrated.  In hindsight, it could have been worse and served as a relatively low-cost lessons learned for her. It took her some time to pay them off.
[/quote]

Good for you for not just bailing her out.

Maybe I've always been weird. I remember my first year of college explaining to a junior that her whole "Oh I always just pay the minimum" attitude about her $1000 maxed out card was costing her nearly $200 that year just in interest.

But now they have a much more clear disclosure of interest adding up on the bill (if you look at it!) that explains exactly how foolish it is to just pay the minimum. But, I am concerned with the "paperless statements" that most of the students opt for now, because many cardholders are just not seeing these important disclosures at all anymore. It really should be prominently displayed right at the top of the window that pops up when you click to pay your bill where you are choosing to pay the balance, minimum, or some other amount. But, it doesn't.

Many colleges have stopped allowing the credit card companies to set up their sign up tables on campus, so maybe some parent complaining about that worked?

Although some people like to point out flaws in Dave Ramsey's plan, the pure fact of the matter is that falling into the student loan and especially consumer debt traps doom many people. The amounts that they will given a never employed students of just those two things make it really hard for many people to ever get off the paycheck to paycheck treadmill.

[Michael in ABQ]

Look at the budget for Rhonda Alvarez in the article. In the middle of a pandemic, when her income is cut drastically, she is still spending over $500/month on "other," which includes home improvement and video streaming services. Is that really necessary?

I'm gonna to guess that her "home improvement" was something like fixing a broken toilet or the air conditioning. In my budget spreadsheet, that would be put in the home maintenance and improvement category since I don't have two separate categories. If it wasn't something like that, then I agree it should have been put off.

The lady currently only has an income of about $1000/month, though. Are we really going to pick on her? She's so far underwater than she's clearly entered the "what the hell" phase of nothing matters anyway. She'll just spend and spend until she declares bankruptcy again, probably. And will it be all her fault? Really? I mean, do the banks who extended her all of this credit bear any responsibility at all? One of my friends who moved here from South America said one of the things no one warned him about was how much EXCESS credit he would be offered in the USA. It annoys me that I indirectly pay to bail out the banks which consistently and repeatedly extend way too much credit to people.

We completely agree that streaming services should be killed, though, unless you are flush. It doesn't make sense to me that people don't immediately do this, or at least only have one service to keep them from going insane during a rainy workless day (like EITHER Netflix or Prime, pick your favorite, not both and certainly not all these extra ones like Disney Plus and HULU and everything else). Paying for TV entertainment is one of the most wasteful things people do. When I was broke, I had a used VCR/DVD players and an antennae, which actually pick up a lot more of the stations than people think. I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox local affiliates with my current cheap antennae.

$7-12/month for a streaming service for literally thousands of hours of entertainment is pretty damn cheap in the grand scheme of things. Now the $60-100/month for cable/satellite is BS which is why we cut the cord a decade ago. We also found that when you have to actually pick something to watch you're far less likely to just watch whatever is on for hours or leave the TV on in the background.

Of course if you're broke and out of work, sitting at home streaming tv and movies is probably not the best use of your time.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

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).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

Are there many "minimum wage factory jobs" anymore? I live in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I often drive past lots of warehouses and factories (including my employer). Some of these are small places that might employ a couple of dozen people, while others are massive with hundreds or even thousands of employees. For several months now, most of these businesses have had large signage out front that says 'help wanted' or 'now hiring' and they're starting people at $14-19/hr.
Any US citizen that can pass a drug test (and maybe a background check at the larger places) can start out making at least double the minimum wage in my area if they're willing to work full time hours in an industrial environment.

Where I live, these jobs tend to be unionized.

Where I live there are virtually no factories that are unionized, and I don't believe I've ever seen a factory job that hired at minimum wage or in the most extreme situations that had you at minimum wage after 3-6 months of consecutive work. The economy goes up. The economy goes down. Boom or bust in my years of work tied to them, factories search high and low for dependable operators, and if they get people that are dependable and somewhat competent, they are most definitely paid higher than minimum wage.

That being said, I've also worked with people who had ties to Detroit and the Big Three back in the heyday of manufacturing and have the stories from them of people who put in their 30 years and got amazing pension until they died which transferred over to their spouse who got the same amazing pension until they died. Benefits definitely aren't at that level now, but getting a non-minimum wage factory job with benefits like health insurance and even a basic 401K with match is not challenging where I'm located.

[skp]

[

$7-12/month for a streaming service for literally thousands of hours of entertainment is pretty damn cheap in the grand scheme of things. Now the $60-100/month for cable/satellite is BS which is why we cut the cord a decade ago. We also found that when you have to actually pick something to watch you're far less likely to just watch whatever is on for hours or leave the TV on in the background.

Of course if you're broke and out of work, sitting at home streaming tv and movies is probably not the best use of your time.
[/quote]

I thought you had to have internet to get Hulu.  I cut the cord and got rid of cable and replaced it with Hulu and an on the roof antenae,  but I still have to have internet in order to get Hulu.  That's $80 a month for me.  Still cheaper than cable but not $12 a month.

[calimom]

I will avoid generalizations about the masses and stick to observations of friends and family I know or have known in my lifetime.  I have always been amazed at how poorly many people manage their money, regardless of their income level. I have known people who have 6-figure incomes and they live paycheck-to-paycheck and have massive debt.  I know someone right now who is trying to live on minimum wage and they think spending $230 monthly for their cell phone package is a sensible.  They presently have free housing and only one of the two are working.  I have a friend who is in his late 70's, who buy's a new car every 5 yrs.  He's essentially had a car payment for decades.  Despite trying to advise differently, we watch our kids spend-spend-spend.  All of them of have some level of cc debt, yet they continue to spend foolishly.  I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  I see a culture in America where many feel entitled to prosperity and they don't want to wait for their desires. 

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs. This is what I was taught as a teenager and many would probably say it's a reflection of my privilege growing up.  The escalation of healthcare, education and housing have all been substantial during my lifetime. All three have largley out-paced income increases over the year.  Fortunately the youth today have easy access to more technology/information than previous generations.  If you are starting out as a young adult today, you do have to be a bit more strategic.  Has the American Dream died? No, but this generation has different challenges than previous generations and don't have the unprescedented advantage(s) that our parents/grandparents had following WWII.

If you were raised in a family and with friends who don't survive on minimum wage jobs, then I'm not at all surprised that this is how you grew up to view minimum wage jobs.

Where I grew up, half of the families in the community survived on minimum wage service jobs.

One of the dirty little secrets that makes the economy work is having people who take care of the very young and the very elderly in our society. It's true: go into any daycare center or old age facility and you will find hardworking, engaged workers making minimum wage. In other generations that wasn't much of a thing. Mulitiple generations lived together and took care of preschoolers and grandparents. We just don't live that way anymore. Daycare workers and nursing home aides just simply make their wages work, however imperfect that is. They're supplemental earners in a family, or if single or head-of-household rely on some additional government assistance like SNAP, low income housing and medical.

[SwordGuy]

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs.

You were raised with a bold-faced lie.    Minimum wage was intended -- from the very beginning -- to be a decent living not poverty wages.

The lie you were raised with was the result of decades of propaganda spread by those who benefit by having an underclass paid piss-poor wages.

[bmjohnson35]

I will avoid generalizations about the masses and stick to observations of friends and family I know or have known in my lifetime.  I have always been amazed at how poorly many people manage their money, regardless of their income level. I have known people who have 6-figure incomes and they live paycheck-to-paycheck and have massive debt.  I know someone right now who is trying to live on minimum wage and they think spending $230 monthly for their cell phone package is a sensible.  They presently have free housing and only one of the two are working.  I have a friend who is in his late 70's, who buy's a new car every 5 yrs.  He's essentially had a car payment for decades.  Despite trying to advise differently, we watch our kids spend-spend-spend.  All of them of have some level of cc debt, yet they continue to spend foolishly.  I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  I see a culture in America where many feel entitled to prosperity and they don't want to wait for their desires. 

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs. This is what I was taught as a teenager and many would probably say it's a reflection of my privilege growing up.  The escalation of healthcare, education and housing have all been substantial during my lifetime. All three have largley out-paced income increases over the year.  Fortunately the youth today have easy access to more technology/information than previous generations.  If you are starting out as a young adult today, you do have to be a bit more strategic.  Has the American Dream died? No, but this generation has different challenges than previous generations and don't have the unprescedented advantage(s) that our parents/grandparents had following WWII.

If you were raised in a family and with friends who don't survive on minimum wage jobs, then I'm not at all surprised that this is how you grew up to view minimum wage jobs.

Where I grew up, half of the families in the community survived on minimum wage service jobs.

One of the dirty little secrets that makes the economy work is having people who take care of the very young and the very elderly in our society. It's true: go into any daycare center or old age facility and you will find hardworking, engaged workers making minimum wage. In other generations that wasn't much of a thing. Mulitiple generations lived together and took care of preschoolers and grandparents. We just don't live that way anymore. Daycare workers and nursing home aides just simply make their wages work, however imperfect that is. They're supplemental earners in a family, or if single or head-of-household rely on some additional government assistance like SNAP, low income housing and medical.

I grew up in a traditional household with one parent who stayed at home.  It is increasingly difficult for a family to live on one paycheck.  We certainly required two incomes during the initial 10-15 years together.  This contributes to the issues you raise.  The long overdue acknowledgement of gender inequality and slow move toward improved equality has also impacted the family unit. 

Fair and equitable wages has always been an issue.  Some of the most critical roles in society are underpaid and many lower-paying careers require a lot of overpriced education. These are not new issues and I certainly don't know how to address it. 

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs.

You were raised with a bold-faced lie.    Minimum wage was intended -- from the very beginning -- to be a decent living not poverty wages.

The lie you were raised with was the result of decades of propaganda spread by those who benefit by having an underclass paid piss-poor wages.

It makes no sense to me that a minimum wage should pay for a family of four. It makes sense that a full-time minimum wage worker should be able to afford a frugal living for himself or herself only.

[jehovasfitness23]

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs.

You were raised with a bold-faced lie.    Minimum wage was intended -- from the very beginning -- to be a decent living not poverty wages.

The lie you were raised with was the result of decades of propaganda spread by those who benefit by having an underclass paid piss-poor wages.

It makes no sense to me that a minimum wage should pay for a family of four. It makes sense that a full-time minimum wage worker should be able to afford a frugal living for himself or herself only.

which is impossible.

Put in context, wife and I, no kids, only debt is mortgage. I'm 15 yrs post college with a respectable career in local gov't. We could not survive off my salary alone.

[Metalcat]

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs.

You were raised with a bold-faced lie.    Minimum wage was intended -- from the very beginning -- to be a decent living not poverty wages.

The lie you were raised with was the result of decades of propaganda spread by those who benefit by having an underclass paid piss-poor wages.

It makes no sense to me that a minimum wage should pay for a family of four. It makes sense that a full-time minimum wage worker should be able to afford a frugal living for himself or herself only.

Okay fine, you can think that, but what about all of the single parent families of 4 with parents who are only qualified to work minimum wage jobs?

Are we back to your preference of using tax dollars to pay for expensive to administer social programs? Because that's more costly to everyone in the end.

It's all well and good to say "it shouldn't be this way", but what do we do with the people who aren't accounted for by the ways it "should be"??

That cost lands somewhere. Either in wages or taxes for social programs or even worse, excess strain on the justice and health systems, which are the MOST expensive options.

People like to be ideological about these things, but that tends to cost much, much more in the end, because poor people are fucking expensive.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

There are many solutions. One is that you can have childcare subsidies (which in the end is a lot cheaper than blowing out the minimum wage). Another is that you rely more on grandparents - who after all are sitting around getting a pension/social security payments for doing absolutely nothing - for childcare. In Asian countries both parents work and the grandparents are much more active in child raising.

Or you can pass the cost of raising the kids onto the defaulting partner. Those single parent families have a second parent, right, albeit one who's not living with them? That's what child support is for.

The other parent may not be able to afford much child support, but the system at least encourages some financial responsibility.

And like I said, at the end of the day you still have child care subsidies or direct cash payments for strapped single parents.

Not saying any of these are perfect solutions, or that they each cover the field. But they each help. And like I said, they're all (in concert) much cheaper than simply doubling the minimum wage so that the single parent on min wage can earn what a double-parent unit would earn.

[Zikoris]

I was raised with the idea that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  Minimum wage jobs were starter jobs or supplemental income jobs.

You were raised with a bold-faced lie.    Minimum wage was intended -- from the very beginning -- to be a decent living not poverty wages.

The lie you were raised with was the result of decades of propaganda spread by those who benefit by having an underclass paid piss-poor wages.

It makes no sense to me that a minimum wage should pay for a family of four. It makes sense that a full-time minimum wage worker should be able to afford a frugal living for himself or herself only.

which is impossible.

Put in context, wife and I, no kids, only debt is mortgage. I'm 15 yrs post college with a respectable career in local gov't. We could not survive off my salary alone.

I 100% guarantee you there are tons and tons of people living off the salary you think is impossible to live off of.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I'm routinely amazed by how much people think is required in order to support themselves. Excepting cases of medical issues, disability etc where obviously the costs can blow out.

Frugal living isn't that hard if you have no infirmities.

[RetiredAt63]

Who just hauled the grandparents back to child care?  They did it once already.  And given today's demographics, the grandparent (I figure Granny, because do you really think Gramps will be suckered into this?) may be well into her 60s or 70s.  Perfect age to care for an energetic toddler, right?  Plus her grandchildren may not live near her, and 2 sets of grand children may live in opposite directions.  And then one child feels slighted if his/her Mom is looking acfer the sibling's kids.  My Mom told me not to count on her for child care, back in the 70s, and I told DD tbe same.  In cultures where the eextended family lives together this may work, but it should not be an expectation by policy setters.  Quebec's $7/day daycare works a lot better.

And support by a divorced Dad (it's usually Dad) can be almost impossible to collect.  They hide their income, they quit their jobs, they move out of the jurisdiction.  Go read a divorce discussion thread.   Not the good Dads, obviously,  because they don't show up in the stories of deadbeat Dads, and their families are OK financially.

And if you have infirmities?  You get hung out to dry?


Basically effective policy needs to look at reality, not ideal situations.  Here our various Conservative parties seem to want to set policy based on the "good old days"  which were great if you were a middle class white man.

[JGS1980]

Bloop... you are an idiot.

Regards,

JGS

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Who just hauled the grandparents back to child care?  They did it once already.  And given today's demographics, the grandparent (I figure Granny, because do you really think Gramps will be suckered into this?) may be well into her 60s or 70s.  Perfect age to care for an energetic toddler, right?  Plus her grandchildren may not live near her, and 2 sets of grand children may live in opposite directions.  And then one child feels slighted if his/her Mom is looking acfer the sibling's kids.  My Mom told me not to count on her for child care, back in the 70s, and I told DD tbe same.  In cultures where the eextended family lives together this may work, but it should not be an expectation by policy setters.  Quebec's $7/day daycare works a lot better.

And support by a divorced Dad (it's usually Dad) can be almost impossible to collect.  They hide their income, they quit their jobs, they move out of the jurisdiction.  Go read a divorce discussion thread.   Not the good Dads, obviously,  because they don't show up in the stories of deadbeat Dads, and their families are OK financially.

And if you have infirmities?  You get hung out to dry?


Basically effective policy needs to look at reality, not ideal situations.  Here our various Conservative parties seem to want to set policy based on the "good old days"  which were great if you were a middle class white man.

No, why would you deliberately twist my words and miss my argument? Maybe you're right and 80% of "divorced Dads" (to use your phrasing, not mine) are deadbeat losers who won't pay up child support. That's okay, it doesn't cover the field, but it helps 20% of single mums, right? Maybe only 20% of grandparents have the time, physical wellbeing and inclination to help out with childcare (though I wonder why it is that in China and Japan, so many more grandparents seem to be able to help....)...but anyway that's okay, that's another 20% of single parents provided for. Maybe altogether my patchwork solutions only help 50-60% of the population...that's still a 50-60% cost savings.

For those who slip between the cracks, or have infirmities, as I said, you can pay a childcare subsidy or direct cash payment.

The point is to try to be frugal and resourceful with our spending, and not overspend.

[RetiredAt63]

BB, the thing is that if policy is based on your assumptions (and it often is) then th4e people who don't fit are screwed.  Then they aren't frugal by choice, they are super frugal out of dire necessity.

And based on your ideas, when DD gets around to having kids, you think I want to move my 70+ year old body 500 km from a MCOL area to a HCOL area so I can be her child care provider?  Hell no.

[OtherJen]

Who just hauled the grandparents back to child care?  They did it once already.

Ha, yeah. When I was a teenager, my mom told me that she had no intention of quitting her job to help me care for my kids. She's almost 70 and still working full time. Fortunately, I was ambivalent at best about having kids and we turned out to be infertile, but I knew from about age 16 on that if I had kids, they'd be entirely my responsibility.

One should never have kids with the assumption that grandparents will help. I don't think my in-laws have ever taken my SIL's kids even for a full day.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

BB, the thing is that if policy is based on your assumptions (and it often is) then th4e people who don't fit are screwed.  Then they aren't frugal by choice, they are super frugal out of dire necessity.

And based on your ideas, when DD gets around to having kids, you think I want to move my 70+ year old body 500 km from a MCOL area to a HCOL area so I can be her child care provider?  Hell no.

That's a choice you have every right to make, and your DD can take that into account, and take personal responsibility for her choices.

[SwordGuy]

Not saying any of these are perfect solutions, or that they each cover the field. But they each help. And like I said, they're all (in concert) much cheaper than simply doubling the minimum wage so that the single parent on min wage can earn what a double-parent unit would earn.

Businesses don't intentionally hire people to do jobs that do not need to be done.     As the conservatives among us would remark, businesses need to be efficient and cost effective, and that's one of their strengths over government, right?

If you agree with that, then every single job a business hires someone to do is -- by definition -- an essential job for that business to function.

So, the question is, why in the hell should someone who works for a living to perform an essential job be paid less than a living?   

Anyone?   Anyone?

Now, some of you are doubtless starting to explain how the price of goods will go up and all kinds of problems will result from that.

Yep, they will.

So, there are two possibilities with that "defense" of the status quo:

1) Someone honestly thinks that they deserve a cheap hamburger and that is of more importance than someone working in poverty so they can do so.    In which case they can sod off and I hope they choke on their cheap hamburger.

2) The capitalistic system simply cannot survive without an underclass of working poor.   In which case the complaints that the socialists and make about capitalism being hopelessly and systemically oppressive are correct, and our moral high ground based on liberty and choice evaporates.

Or, we can accept that some business models -- those that require their employees to be exploited with poverty wages -- simply should not be acceptable.   Either we will pay more for those goods or we will do without them.  Everyone who gets paid a decent wage can now afford to buy more goods and services and that's what most of them will do.   That will help with a business expansion.  Businesses will adapt.   Some will go away, some will automate, others will change and prosper.   But people will find work and that work will afford a decent living.

If we're worried about being undercut by cheap foreign labor or pollution-unregulated manufacturing overseas, then join together with other first world countries and set up a tariff system that charges thru the nose if those countries don't have equivalent labor and anti-pollution standards that are actually enforced.   Businesses won't find it near as profitable to move operations overseas.

2)

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I don't agree that every job a business hires someone for is 'essential'. It is merely better than the opportunity cost.

For example I sometimes hire law students at $30/hour to do admin tasks for me or really simple research. On the basis that it is a better use of their time and my money. However, it's not "essential", merely marginally desirable. If I have the time, or of the research is hard, or if I don't have any suitable applicants then I forego the task or I might even do it myself.

Put this way, a McDonald's might hire someone to work as a cashier because it's marginally better (either for cost reasons or consumer preference reasons) than using a smiley faced robot with a McDonald's hat.

So I don't know that I agree that every job is 'essential'. If it was, then redundancies, changes to hours of work, restructuring, and firing would never happen.

Also, calling every job 'essential' rather undermines the distinction between types of jobs; based on job security and pay, some jobs are undoubtedly "more essential" than others. So again, the use of a polar term like essential is not particularly helpful.

Finally, even if I disregard all the above and accept that every job is essential, it doesn't seem clear to me why an "essential" job should pay a living that supports a whole family (including a non-working partner) rather than just the worker.

[SwordGuy]

I don't agree that every job a business hires someone for is 'essential'. It is merely better than the opportunity cost.

For example I sometimes hire law students at $30/hour to do admin tasks for me or really simple research. On the basis that it is a better use of their time and my money. However, it's not "essential", merely marginally desirable. If I have the time, or of the research is hard, or if I don't have any suitable applicants then I forego the task or I might even do it myself.

Put this way, a McDonald's might hire someone to work as a cashier because it's marginally better (either for cost reasons or consumer preference reasons) than using a smiley faced robot with a McDonald's hat.

So, you want to optimize the results you get.  If hiring that employee does that, and not hiring them does not, then they are essential to get those results.   I mean essential in that sense, not that there is no other way to run the business at all.   

So I don't know that I agree that every job is 'essential'. If it was, then redundancies, changes to hours of work, restructuring, and firing would never happen.

Bad logic.   Needs change.   Businesses make mistakes.  Managers can be ignorant or just plain stupid.  Economic cycles cycle.   

Also, calling every job 'essential' rather undermines the distinction between types of jobs; based on job security and pay, some jobs are undoubtedly "more essential" than others. So again, the use of a polar term like essential is not particularly helpful.

Then give me a better word to use.    One that isn't the functional equivalent to untermensch.

Finally, even if I disregard all the above and accept that every job is essential, it doesn't seem clear to me why an "essential" job should pay a living that supports a whole family (including a non-working partner) rather than just the worker.

It's not clear to me why anyone shouldn't be able to support a family if they work for a living.   They should certainly make enough to plan for some years of only one income.  That means somewhere there's an acceptable compromise.

Not every child has two functional parents raising them.   Not every single parent has done "something wrong for which they should be punished with poverty" and no child in that situation ever has.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Instead of 'essential' I would use a word like 'desirable' to describe a job that exists in the open market.

[Villanelle]

Not saying any of these are perfect solutions, or that they each cover the field. But they each help. And like I said, they're all (in concert) much cheaper than simply doubling the minimum wage so that the single parent on min wage can earn what a double-parent unit would earn.

Businesses don't intentionally hire people to do jobs that do not need to be done.     As the conservatives among us would remark, businesses need to be efficient and cost effective, and that's one of their strengths over government, right?

If you agree with that, then every single job a business hires someone to do is -- by definition -- an essential job for that business to function.

So, the question is, why in the hell should someone who works for a living to perform an essential job be paid less than a living?   

Anyone?   Anyone?

Now, some of you are doubtless starting to explain how the price of goods will go up and all kinds of problems will result from that.

Yep, they will.

So, there are two possibilities with that "defense" of the status quo:

1) Someone honestly thinks that they deserve a cheap hamburger and that is of more importance than someone working in poverty so they can do so.    In which case they can sod off and I hope they choke on their cheap hamburger.

2) The capitalistic system simply cannot survive without an underclass of working poor.   In which case the complaints that the socialists and make about capitalism being hopelessly and systemically oppressive are correct, and our moral high ground based on liberty and choice evaporates.

Or, we can accept that some business models -- those that require their employees to be exploited with poverty wages -- simply should not be acceptable.   Either we will pay more for those goods or we will do without them.  Everyone who gets paid a decent wage can now afford to buy more goods and services and that's what most of them will do.   That will help with a business expansion.  Businesses will adapt.   Some will go away, some will automate, others will change and prosper.   But people will find work and that work will afford a decent living.

If we're worried about being undercut by cheap foreign labor or pollution-unregulated manufacturing overseas, then join together with other first world countries and set up a tariff system that charges thru the nose if those countries don't have equivalent labor and anti-pollution standards that are actually enforced.   Businesses won't find it near as profitable to move operations overseas.

2)

I think this gets back into what "a living" is, and perhaps also a question of how many hours one should have to work to have that living. I worked "for a living" in college, and that meant sharing an apartment and utilities, and sometimes even vehicles, with two other women.  Was that "a living"?  Or does "a living" mean supporting 3 other humans?  Or perhaps 6 other humans?  (And does it mean having a home to one's self only?  Does it mean having a car?  A car that's 10 years old or newer? Five years? Cable and internet and a smartphone?  Etc.) 

I think there are very few people who think it's okay for a person to be homeless and unable to feed themselves enough to survive if they work 40-60 hours a week.  So that's probably the ceiling for what is reasonably considered "a living".  But above that, I suspect there are plenty of definitions. 

[SwordGuy]

Not saying any of these are perfect solutions, or that they each cover the field. But they each help. And like I said, they're all (in concert) much cheaper than simply doubling the minimum wage so that the single parent on min wage can earn what a double-parent unit would earn.

Businesses don't intentionally hire people to do jobs that do not need to be done.     As the conservatives among us would remark, businesses need to be efficient and cost effective, and that's one of their strengths over government, right?

If you agree with that, then every single job a business hires someone to do is -- by definition -- an essential job for that business to function.

So, the question is, why in the hell should someone who works for a living to perform an essential job be paid less than a living?   

Anyone?   Anyone?

Now, some of you are doubtless starting to explain how the price of goods will go up and all kinds of problems will result from that.

Yep, they will.

So, there are two possibilities with that "defense" of the status quo:

1) Someone honestly thinks that they deserve a cheap hamburger and that is of more importance than someone working in poverty so they can do so.    In which case they can sod off and I hope they choke on their cheap hamburger.

2) The capitalistic system simply cannot survive without an underclass of working poor.   In which case the complaints that the socialists and make about capitalism being hopelessly and systemically oppressive are correct, and our moral high ground based on liberty and choice evaporates.

Or, we can accept that some business models -- those that require their employees to be exploited with poverty wages -- simply should not be acceptable.   Either we will pay more for those goods or we will do without them.  Everyone who gets paid a decent wage can now afford to buy more goods and services and that's what most of them will do.   That will help with a business expansion.  Businesses will adapt.   Some will go away, some will automate, others will change and prosper.   But people will find work and that work will afford a decent living.

If we're worried about being undercut by cheap foreign labor or pollution-unregulated manufacturing overseas, then join together with other first world countries and set up a tariff system that charges thru the nose if those countries don't have equivalent labor and anti-pollution standards that are actually enforced.   Businesses won't find it near as profitable to move operations overseas.

2)

I think this gets back into what "a living" is, and perhaps also a question of how many hours one should have to work to have that living. I worked "for a living" in college, and that meant sharing an apartment and utilities, and sometimes even vehicles, with two other women.  Was that "a living"?  Or does "a living" mean supporting 3 other humans?  Or perhaps 6 other humans?  (And does it mean having a home to one's self only?  Does it mean having a car?  A car that's 10 years old or newer? Five years? Cable and internet and a smartphone?  Etc.) 

I think there are very few people who think it's okay for a person to be homeless and unable to feed themselves enough to survive if they work 40-60 hours a week.  So that's probably the ceiling for what is reasonably considered "a living".  But above that, I suspect there are plenty of definitions.

I completely agree.

I also note that none of those definitions are considered acceptable to a whole lot of Americans.   They actively believe that people working for a living (not themselves, of course!) should be paid poverty wages for the benefit of businesses and the business owners.   They will often come out of the woodwork to support that position and justify that poverty with mythical pronouncements about how getting more skills will allow all such workers to get better jobs.   It will allow SOME workers to get better jobs, but there simply aren't enough better paying jobs for everyone.   

[Just Joe]

Military  service resulted in FIRE for my sister's  neighbors.

My sister is a best friend of her neighbors, a married couple in their early 40s.

She is on a path to FIRE and the couple is FIREd so when the three of them are together they talk about their finances and other retirement matters.

The couple is childfree.

Husband entered the USN when he was ~18. He stayed in for ~22 years and retired at the highest rank possible, a level 9, master reactor technician. He spent most of his time on submarines. He has a monthly, inflation-adjusted  pension for life and military-provided health insurance for himself and wife.

Wife is a retired nurse; she worked and saved $ from age 22 to 41. IDK about her pension benefits if any.

They have ~$1.7 million invested in stocks/bonds.

Their paid-off townhouse is worth ~$700K.

He has a new truck and she a new car.

The couple now enjoys secure FIRE because of his military career.

Had DW and I wanted to be childfree we would have made different choices that would have resulted in a more nomadic lifestyle. We would have certainly accumulated $$$ faster. We're comfortable but due to our responsibilities, we've chosen a path focused on stability.

[Just Joe]

FWIW I personally believe that:

• The military is one of the best ways for people to jump socioeconomic class
• Societally we shouldn't be happy that the military fills this role

I really wish we would do more programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps or otherwise overlap "do something which makes you more valuable in the job marketplace."

I agree about having viable alternatives to military service. In fact I wish everyone had to serve a few year's service - military or CCC type projects.

[SwordGuy]

Instead of 'essential' I would use a word like 'desirable' to describe a job that exists in the open market.

There's very little desirable about a job that pays poverty wages.

So none of the federal minimum wage jobs are "desirable".   And there we find agreement.

But that's side stepping the point.   If a business hires someone to do a job, the business believes that job is worth doing by that person.   Paying the person a decent living should be a requirement in that equation.