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.
Let's pretend you work 40 hours a week and make $10/hr. Your take home for the month is about 1300 a month.
Renting a room: averages about $650 even in the marginal areas, an average one bedroom these days is about $1400.
Health insurance: $200
Cell phone/phone: $50
Utilities: $50
Food: $120
So I am at $1070. My barrista examples likely went to college or are current students, since most of the workers are at this place. They might have loan debt. And insurance for young people is more like $250 these days...but I am being generous. What about transportation? Toilet paper? It is pretty precarious quickly. And most people aren't getting 40 hours in these low wage jobs. More like 28 hours. Just under the flag to get employer paid insurance. So yes, I can easily see how someone would fall into food stamps pretty fast.
What are you responding to in my quote that makes you think I disagree with you? I'm saying the jobs could pay $15-$20 per hour and thus be a living wage.
How about move to a cheaper area? I lived in a cheap area and paid a whopping $530 for a two bedroom.
I do not get where people think they are entitled to live in an expensive area.
So people who barely have enough to pay their expenses would be able to afford to relocate someplace far away from where they live, then enough to hold out until they find a job, etc...? This doesn't even take into account familial responsibilities (children/spouse/parents), support networks (which themselves decrease costs), etc...
Moreover, the reason those cheap places are cheap is usually, in part, because they aren't booming. Thus, the idea that mass exodus to cheap areas wouldn't cause its own increases in costs ignores the demand side of the equation.
Massive inflation is a byproduct of endless money printing and 17 billion in debt. Inflation = higher cost of living. Oh and you wanna see a what a low wage economy is, look at where all the "stuff" is made and then get back to me... The poor here have AC, smartphones, clean water, mostly fair police/justice system.... The poor here live better than 75% of the world.
Massive inflation is a byproduct of endless money printing and 17 billion in debt. Inflation = higher cost of living. Oh and you wanna see a what a low wage economy is, look at where all the "stuff" is made and then get back to me... The poor here have AC, smartphones, clean water, mostly fair police/justice system.... The poor here live better than 75% of the world.
We've had historically low inflation for 30 years now, and it persists at levels that would verge on deflationary pressures were it not for the "easy money" you seem to be decrying.
Second, why should the poor be happy because they don't live like slum-dwellers in Rio or Mumbai? Why is an unnecessarily poor quality of life okay because others elsewhere have it even worse?
Also, I think the "fair police/justice system" is highly arguable. We quite literally have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world (including Russia/China/etc...). Indeed, our incarceration rate is thought to be higher now in the U.S. than it was in the gulag system in the early 50s under Stalin. And it does overwhelmingly target the poor and poor minorities. And our prison system is rated among the worst (in terms of care, safety, etc..) in the developed world. That and police corruption, which is endemic.
Thy may have a support system in place that helps them stay (barely) above water. Low cost areas are no bargain if mom isn't there to babysit.
If they need a baby sitter, they perhaps should have thought of the impact of decisions like having a kid. Yes, suffer the consequences of your decision.
So people who barely have enough to pay their expenses would be able to afford to relocate someplace far away from where they live, then enough to hold out until they find a job, etc...? This doesn't even take into account familial responsibilities (children/spouse/parents), support networks (which themselves decrease costs), etc...
Moreover, the reason those cheap places are cheap is usually, in part, because they aren't booming. Thus, the idea that mass exodus to cheap areas wouldn't cause its own increases in costs ignores the demand side of the equation.
Well heck, with all of these great "support networks" everything should be just fine then, right?
Explain to me how is it they are "owed" a wage higher than what their jobs skills demand? They live in a high cost of living area, who's fault is that? Two adults choose not to live in a place for two month, who made that decision? A person chooses to pursue an education that will not give them high wage employable skills, the fault is with who? Basically, why should a company suppose to be responsible for the financial actions of their employees? If you want companies responsible for this, then that means companies should have some authority as well; you think companies should have authority in the personal decisions of their employees?
You still have not yet defined living wage, still waiting...
We've had historically low inflation for 30 years now, and it persists at levels that would verge on deflationary pressures were it not for the "easy money" you seem to be decrying.
There is all kinds of inflation, which one are you referring to? If there has been low inflation, then why is four dollars 30 years ago not have the same purchasing power as four dollars today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Second, why should the poor be happy because they don't live like slum-dwellers in Rio or Mumbai? Why is an unnecessarily poor quality of life okay because others elsewhere have it even worse?
Of course not, but the constant drum of "I want more" is rather irritating. Example the argument regarding kids; many of these people act like it is some right for them to have kids and have others assist in paying for their kids. They will be on food stamps and continue to pump kid after kid out. Supporters act like every one of these people had a $100k year job and all of a sudden lost it, when in fact most of these people never had the income to support kids. You see the gov is subsidizing in one area, so they have discretionary income in other areas to pay for their little pleasures in life.
Since when was a barista a job meant to pay for good "living wage"? Get a second part time job or find a better full time one. Adjust your expenses to live prudently and start saving whatever you can...unless you live in a high COL city, making it on your own as a single 20-some year old really isn't that hard.
My wife and I are in our young 20's and live off about $2,000 a month net pay (she's a student and we've been paying school tuiton out of that as well). That's more than most baristas, but it's hardly a fortune.
The problem is, there is "making sacrifices to make ends meet" and really sacrificing.
No one finds it troubling a couple, with 2 gainfully employed adults with full-time jobs, decides to camp and couch surf for the summer to save money? That's terrible. 2 adults should be able to afford a reasonable place to live. These people don't have kids and they don't even have cars. So something is really off with the universe, if they are already living pretty minimal lifestyles, and figure not paying 3 months for the year is the best way to afford life.
And these 20-somethings who work who are on food stamps? It is a bonafied trend for low-wage workers. They types of people who are already driving crappy cars (or not driving) and living with roommates and such. And they still can't afford to pay bills and eat.
Meanwhile, shareholders and CEOs are loading up! And the workers are suffering. Full-time work used to allow you to afford a decent life, yet not extravagant. Now you can't even eat and pay rent....even if you are child-free.
Nope, not at all. It's a personal choice. They can continue to enjoy their over consumption lifestyle their incomes do not merit by going of the grid for two months when they're not working while doing something the like to do. I think that's great. It isn't the choice I would make, but who am I to judge them doing something they are passionate about while simultaneously saving money. I mean, they could just buckle down and do the boring thing and work during the summer, but they'd rather do this. I think that's pretty cool.
As for hipsters getting food stamps and discussing way to save money, welcome to the working poor. Romanticize working poor all you want, but it's always sucked. Being white and trendy doesn't make it not suck anymore than it sucks for non-trendy brown people. I actually find the romanticizing of it distasteful but it's not my life.
I do a fair amount of workers' comp related legal proceedings. You'll find a lot more people there that are deserving of sympathy than two professionals who choose not to live within their means or privileged art students who don't want to buckle down and get a real job. They have options and a much better starting position than someone who comes here with a 4th grade education, often don't have a legal right to work and are thus relegated to the worst jobs, don't qualify for welfare like food stamps and somehow still manage to make things work.
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.
