Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only 5% of Americans make minimum wage or less? Is that true? If so thats amazing. I was reading somewhere last week that MILLIONS of Brits are earning LESS than minimum wage.
Only 5% of Americans make minimum wage or less? Is that true? If so thats amazing. I was reading somewhere last week that MILLIONS of Brits are earning LESS than minimum wage.
Yes, it's true. The stats may fluctuate a bit year to year, but I posted the link from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I don't know about UK percentages.
My point is though that this concept of hordes of US citizens living in abject poverty in row after row of cheap trailer houses, working 60 hours a week at two minimum wage jobs is really not the norm at all - it's a very small percentage of Americans who may live that way.
"Poverty" in the US is really a relative term. It would be considered the lap of luxury for many people the world over.
Only 5% of Americans make minimum wage or less? Is that true? If so thats amazing. I was reading somewhere last week that MILLIONS of Brits are earning LESS than minimum wage.
5% of Brits is millions (about three).
5% of Americans seems a bit low, presumably that doesn't include anyone unemployed or retired, maybe not even part-timers, so as a percentage of total workforce it would be much higher. Plus there are quite a few jobs that pay only just above minimum wage (which varies by state anyway).
In all, it is far more complicated to compare than it may appear!
5% of Americans seems a bit low, presumably that doesn't include anyone unemployed or retired, maybe not even part-timers, so as a percentage of total workforce it would be much higher. Plus there are quite a few jobs that pay only just above minimum wage (which varies by state anyway).
In all, it is far more complicated to compare than it may appear!
I don't even see the real point in trying to compare them, when the bottom line is each individual's "quality of life." By the way, like I said, the Bureau of Labor statistics site I gave gives a lot of details about the demographics.
And why WOULD retirees count, if they're not working?
The point is that the US is so huge and so diverse that not only do minimum wages vary significantly from state to state, what wages will actually PURCHASE (ie, your quality of life) varies dramatically also.
Heck, even trailers and trailer parks vary widely! Some double wide mobile homes ("trailers") are over 2000 square feet large, with five bedrooms. I'm not saying I'd want to live in one, but plenty of people choose to do so, and not just because they can't afford a house (some double wides cost as much as a regular home). They can be a very comfortable choice for a home, and people who make far above "minimum wage" often choose to buy a mobile home. Lots of people like that they can then put that home on a tract of acreage out in the country. Like I said, it's not my style but so what? A mobile home is not necessarily an indicator of low wages.
I don't even see the real point in trying to compare them, when the bottom line is each individual's "quality of life." By the way, like I said, the Bureau of Labor statistics site I gave gives a lot of details about the demographics.
And why WOULD retirees count, if they're not working?
The point is that the US is so huge and so diverse that not only do minimum wages vary significantly from state to state, what wages will actually PURCHASE (ie, your quality of life) varies dramatically also.
Heck, even trailers and trailer parks vary widely! Some double wide mobile homes ("trailers") are over 2000 square feet large, with five bedrooms. I'm not saying I'd want to live in one, but plenty of people choose to do so, and not just because they can't afford a house (some double wides cost as much as a regular home). They can be a very comfortable choice for a home, and people who make far above "minimum wage" often choose to buy a mobile home. Lots of people like that they can then put that home on a tract of acreage out in the country. Like I said, it's not my style but so what? A mobile home is not necessarily an indicator of low wages.
Many mobile homes in the US are actually second homes or cottages people use for vacationing. I have friends who own mobile homes in lake country for getaway weekends "up north".
Many mobile homes in the US are actually second homes or cottages people use for vacationing. I have friends who own mobile homes in lake country for getaway weekends "up north".
True, I hadn't even thought about that.
My husband and I are contemplating building one of those modular homes (a log cabin type) at the lake - sort of to complement our McMansion I guess! (J/K!) Don't know when all us silly Americans can ever use a vacation home though, considering we don't get vacation time to speak of.
My husband and I are contemplating building one of those modular homes (a log cabin type) at the lake - sort of to complement our McMansion I guess! (J/K!) Don't know when all us silly Americans can ever use a vacation home though, considering we don't get vacation time to speak of.
I'll use it Kathryn!
I'm back in Texas in the New Year for a while! I can't wait.
This discussion of being fired for political beliefs overlooks an important point: all of the people claiming discrimination were fired not for having a political viewpoint, but rather for expressing it while at work. I think it is reasonable to expect that people refrain from discussing politics (and other charged topics) while on the clock. My previous employer had a no discussing politics at work policy, and it was quite refreshing. At my current job, I usually pop in earphones when people start talking politics. Because really, we're not at work to express our personal beliefs; we're there to do our jobs.
While I agree that having a politcal bore at work can be a pain in the backside, that's more Orwellian than refreshing. American corporate policy seems to be that the employee is a mere faceless producing machine property of the company and should leave any trace of personality or humanity at the door and refrain from any type of human relation with their co-workers that's not part of a corporate-sanctioned activity.
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that upward mobility for the poorest people - in the US or the UK - is difficult. A wiser person than I once said, "The poor are always with us."
Sure, I agree completely. It can take a great deal more effort and ability for people from poorer backgrounds to overcome obstacles to success than those from more privileged backgrounds, which is why it's such a credit to yourself and your husband for pulling it off. The primary reason I was drawn into the topic of social mobility is because I've had impressed on me just how much of a difference it makes to the functioning of society. The USA in particular has always rightly valued the principle of the American Dream, but the problem as I see it, is that with every passing generation the American Dream becomes more of a dream. It's not that I have an axe to grind with the USA, or that I have a misplaced sense of the UK's position on this; as while the UK has somewhat greater social mobility than exists in the USA, it's nowhere near a record worthy of boasting about when compared with the big hitters like Sweden.
Quote:
Not only that, but poorer Americans have many social programs they are eligible for, which offsets their poverty to a great extent. I know, because I was once one of the poorest Americans (now in the top 2 percent of households when it comes to income). Though we had little disposable income during our years of poverty, we did have social programs which assured the health of our family, which is the most important thing in the long run. Food stamps, housing assistance, health insurance and medical care, food vouchers for the kids (WIC), free/reduced daycare, free or reduced prices on two meals a day at school, tuition grants and assistance, etc etc etc. All through local, state, and federal government programs.
Again I agree that the US Government does act to help poor people, but what I'm really trying to get at is that it doesn't do nearly as much as it could (and I'd argue should) to help. So I'm not mis-interpreted here I'll re-state that the UK doesn't have a lot to be proud of in this respect either. When I entered this discussion I had assumed that Tvdxer was (he'll forgive me for saying) a bit of a simpleton because he seemed to conclude that American poor people have a decent time of it because they can afford consumer electronics. Tvdxer proved my initial assessment of him to be way off the mark with his well-researched post on the living standards of various socio-economic groups in the Duluth area, but I feel like I haven't really gotten my point across.
I wonder if the current American populace aren't to some extent under-valuing the effect of social mobility as the most important form of wealth. People will put up with just about any level of destitution so long as they know its temporary and they can work themselves out of it, but people at the bottom who think (often with good reason) that they're going to stay at the bottom turn to despondence, booze, drugs, anti-social behaviour and a slippery slope ending in crime. I'm perhaps doing a dis-service to Americans here, because I know that 99.9% of Americans will agree with everything I've just said. However, I also know that Americans are going to start disagreeing once I propose Government led (& tax funded) solutions to the problem. This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, there are plenty of Brits who are skeptical of Government interventions as well, but the scale of the mistrust of Government and its resulting effects are uniquely American.
I find this confusing. Most Americans will acknowledge that a lack of social mobility causes crime and a raft of social problems. Most Americans are happy to fund a police force to catch and deter criminals. Yet a great many Americans (more than any other nationality I'm familiar with) object profusely to the US Government spending even the paltry sums it does at present to help people onto the greasy pole. I could understand if they were criticising policies which were inefficient or ineffective, but I don't see that happen very often, mostly they seem to allude to any interventionist policies as being detrimental rather than vital. If re-distributive economies like in Scandinavia didn't exist, I could maybe understand it, but because there are clear lessons the USA and UK can learn from these other countries I struggle to understand the contentiousness.
Sure, I agree completely. It can take a great deal more effort and ability for people from poorer backgrounds to overcome obstacles to success than those from more privileged backgrounds, which is why it's such a credit to yourself and your husband for pulling it off. The primary reason I was drawn into the topic of social mobility is because I've had impressed on me just how much of a difference it makes to the functioning of society. The USA in particular has always rightly valued the principle of the American Dream, but the problem as I see it, is that with every passing generation the American Dream becomes more of a dream. It's not that I have an axe to grind with the USA, or that I have a misplaced sense of the UK's position on this; as while the UK has somewhat greater social mobility than exists in the USA, it's nowhere near a record worthy of boasting about when compared with the big hitters like Sweden.
Again I agree that the US Government does act to help poor people, but what I'm really trying to get at is that it doesn't do nearly as much as it could (and I'd argue should) to help. So I'm not mis-interpreted here I'll re-state that the UK doesn't have a lot to be proud of in this respect either. When I entered this discussion I had assumed that Tvdxer was (he'll forgive me for saying) a bit of a simpleton because he seemed to conclude that American poor people have a decent time of it because they can afford consumer electronics. Tvdxer proved my initial assessment of him to be way off the mark with his well-researched post on the living standards of various socio-economic groups in the Duluth area, but I feel like I haven't really gotten my point across.
I wonder if the current American populace aren't to some extent under-valuing the effect of social mobility as the most important form of wealth. People will put up with just about any level of destitution so long as they know its temporary and they can work themselves out of it, but people at the bottom who think (often with good reason) that they're going to stay at the bottom turn to despondence, booze, drugs, anti-social behaviour and a slippery slope ending in crime. I'm perhaps doing a dis-service to Americans here, because I know that 99.9% of Americans will agree with everything I've just said. However, I also know that Americans are going to start disagreeing once I propose Government led (& tax funded) solutions to the problem. This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, there are plenty of Brits who are skeptical of Government interventions as well, but the scale of the mistrust of Government and its resulting effects are uniquely American.
I find this confusing. Most Americans will acknowledge that a lack of social mobility causes crime and a raft of social problems. Most Americans are happy to fund a police force to catch and deter criminals. Yet a great many Americans (more than any other nationality I'm familiar with) object profusely to the US Government spending even the paltry sums it does at present to help people onto the greasy pole. I could understand if they were criticising policies which were inefficient or ineffective, but I don't see that happen very often, mostly they seem to allude to any interventionist policies as being detrimental rather than vital. If re-distributive economies like in Scandinavia didn't exist, I could maybe understand it, but because there are clear lessons the USA and UK can learn from these other countries I struggle to understand the contentiousness.
Anyway I digress,
Eoin
I was going to take this point by point, but I'll stick with simplicity because it's more of an attitude than anything else we're really discussing.
You know the old saying - The greater the risk, the higher the potential return on investment. Well, many Americans believe that. We're a nation of risk takers, renegades, and refugees. For most of us, our ancestors bet against the odds and came here under onerous conditions to carve out a living from a wild, harsh, beautiful land bursting with hopes and hardships. They came here to escape oppressive, abusive governments. They never expected life to be easy, or to have anything guaranteed to them other than danger and hard work in exchange for opportunity.
We are their children. In order to understand Americans, you simply MUST acknowledge, and respect this familial history that so many of us -the majority of us - share.
By the way, chastisement on these supposedly rigid social classes in the US, especially coming from a person from the UK, really does strike me as ironic. The United States has an unprecedented history and tradition of offering unparalleled opportunity to just about ANYONE from any corner of the globe or socioeconomic status - if they are willing and able to grasp the concepts of capitalism and hard work. We are one of the least "class conscious" countries on this planet. Are you honestly reaching this conclusion of Americans being trapped in our "social classes" because you read an article on the very poorest of the poor in the US which stated that they have a difficult time breaking that cycle of poverty? That would be true in nearly any country.
There can be very little valid comparison between, say, Sweden and the US - the two countries are so incredibly disparate and the US is so vastly different in size, population, diversity, even climate compared to Sweden. What "works" for a very small (comparatively) group of similar people, with similar backgrounds, work ethics, and even genetics, in a small geographical area, simply cannot be assumed to work on a completely different culture in a completely different setting (both geographically and historically).
By the way, 99.9 percent of Americans won't agree on ANY one thing, including "everything you just said." Sorry!
Last edited by KathrynAragon; 11-02-2012 at 10:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't wait.
