Poll of the Day > McDonald's and Visa show you how to budget to live on minimum wage

(+) Yeah! (+)

Delicinq4 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

Bringing up mentally ill and handicapped people is dishonest to this discussion.

I don't see why it is. They're adult workers and in some circumstances are able to and need to work.

Because they dont even have the opportuntiy to make choices to increase their wage. The government should be making their lives easier and giving them the minimum livable salary + 10%.

Minimum wage is not a minimum livable salary in most places though.

And if you did give that to anyone for free, why would anyone work the 48% of jobs that pay minimum wage, if they could get more for being disables/sick/unable to work etc? Youwould see tons of people suddenly being injuried/handicapped etc.

Choice between working an 80 hour week just to survive barely, or breaking your freaking legs and being stuck in a wheelchair....I think alot of people would take the chair in a second.

Same with jail to be honest, I mean, that is often considered a large reason why many people turn to crime, the alternative for them (in their eyes at least) is working crappy min wage jobs and barely surviving. Crime doesn't pay for the average person, but they still commit them because it's freaking better then the alternative to them.
---

Yeah, that shit sucks, but is expected.

I guess if you have a min wage job you have to either have two jobs or split the rent with someone else.

It sucks, but it is possible to move up the chain and get raises (totally depends on where you work at).

It's also possible to go get some post high school education using loans or whatever.

If you are an able bodied person, it is possible to not work minimum wage jobs.

I always considered minimum wage to be a low amount to he earned by high school kids in their first jobs to incentivise them to try hard in life because they understand how little money minimum wage really is.

You can't blame the people who didn't get an education or learn a well paying union trade.... OH WAIT, yes you can. Fuck those guys for not trying to keep up with the joneses and be better than their neighbors and loved ones in terms of income.

The worst excuse is when people say they can't do better for themselves because they have kids to take care of and can't go back to school or learn a trade. One, having kids was a total choice and sorry you decided to prematurely fuck over your life thinking this was still the 50s/60s and you could make a living doing unskilled labor. Two, there are plenty of people that manage to completely turn their lives around while working two or three jobs at the same time as having a family. I could never do it, but those people deserve a hand while one job minimum wagers deserve to be laughed at
---

ReggieTheReckless posted...

I always considered minimum wage to be a low amount to he earned by high school kids in their first jobs to incentivise them to try hard in life because they understand how little money minimum wage really is.

lol...
---

Jen0125 posted...

yeah my health insurance is $158 a month for just me and it's subsidized by my company. are they assuming that their employees are so low income they'll be eligible for medicaid or other state sponsored low income health care?

I live in Canada with the universal health care. Most people here have supplemental insurance for things like optical, dental, prescriptions, and massage / chiropractor. Even that cheap ass insurance is still $70 per month.

The $20 insurance is a horrible joke.
---

they made this with the assumption that you would also be on food stamps iirc

which is asinine, because I don't know of any state where that income would qualify for food stamps
---

I worked (mostly) min wage jobs till I graduated HS at 16 (from age 11), had to be under the table mostly due to my age. At 19 I worked a min wage graveyard job at Carls Jn while going to a vocational school during the day for 9 months (8 hours a day). This got me my electronic techs degree, and a job paying $11 an hour (about double min wage) initially. I got promoted to lead tech in 6 months (over everyone else due to being able to problem solve new pagers and the old lead teach leaving), and got a raise to $14 an hour (almost 3x min wage at that point).

I was both motivated, and smart, and had massive advantages over other people. There where other electronic techs (friends of mine eventually) who had worked there for years and were still making around $11 an hour (still decent back then). I was WAY younger then any other employee as well (most had to get an AA degree at least to qualify for the job).

I did that job for 2 years and moved on to running S&H for a company (Salaried position), making significantly more. Meanwhile they kept working that same job, or similar ones. Most people, if they find a job they can live on, especially if it pays more then minimum wage, keep the job, unless they hate it (and even sometimes even if they hate it).

I never worked any job I hated more then a month or two. That is not the norm, and I am very lucky, and I realize that.

Tons of people work jobs they do not like (which is part of the problem I think, you should find a way to like your job, or move on, I have only had 2 jobs I didn't like/couldn't find a way to like, and I left them both quickly (working as a cashier for Safeway and Selling TVs at Sears in Vancouver WA across the river from tax free Oregon).

Min wage, in my opinion, should be different then a living wage. Min wage should be the lowest amount you can pay a high school student or someone working less then 20 hours a week. Any job that is over 20 hours a week should be required to pay a living wage, which is determined in part by the cost to rent in the area (and updated yearly I would guess).

A living wage should be based on a 40 hour work week (Even if you have employees work more or less (over 20), and should be something like (ARP*2)/120 per hour (ARP is average rental price for a 1 bedroom in the area).


For instance, you can rent a 1 bedroom for about $900 here. That is about the cheapest you can get. So the living wage would 900*2=1800 divide that by 120 and you would get $15/hr.

Basically you would be able to pay your rent by working for 2 weeks at any job (even if it only gave you 30 hours a week).

In the bay area where the cheapest rent is $1500....you would make almost 22$ an hour, and could still basically pay your rent by workign 60 hours a month.

I personally think 60 hours of work should pay for a small place to live by yourself (1 bedroom apartment), minimum. It's crazy that in many places right now you need to work 80+ hours at min wage just to freaking rent a 1 bedroom yourself.
---

tl;dr
---

wolfy42 posted...

Min wage, in my opinion, should be different then a living wage. Min wage should be the lowest amount you can pay a high school student or someone working less then 20 hours a week. Any job that is over 20 hours a week should be required to pay a living wage, which is determined in part by the cost to rent in the area (and updated yearly I would guess).

That's absurd. It's not just high school students taking part time work. And that only incentivizes companies to hire more part time employees and fewer full time employees, making it necessary to take on multiple part time jobs to pay bills.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Cacciato posted...

My healthcare is cheap as fuck and pretty good and it's still 18 bucks a paycheck.

don't you get government sponsored health care still since you're a veteran? i don't think your price is the norm.

Nah, I mean I think it's free at the VA but I'm talking about my actual Anthem insurance through CMA CGM.

helly posted...

they made this with the assumption that you would also be on food stamps iirc

which is asinine, because I don't know of any state where that income would qualify for food stamps

Yeah, no way you could get food stamps with even 1 of those jobs, let alone both of them (Especially if your not disabled/have no kids etc).

For a single person you can't get cheap health care, and you can't get food stamps assistance unless your disabled (not sure on the process if your disabled even).

Where I live, the cheapest you can pay to live is probably around $1000-$1200 a month if you want a roof over your head at least (There is often more then 1 homeless person on every block of my town, especially downtown, but even on the east side). You can rent a room for 600 or so, and if your really frugal, you can probably eat for 20-30$ a week, so say another $100. You might...might be able to walk everywhere, not pay utilities/cable/phone etc, and get by with $800 a month total costs.

Honestly though, anything under $1k and you are barely better then homeless (your not being rained on constantly at least...but probably better ways to spend your money and be homeless, then blow $600 just to avoid the rain).
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

wolfy42 posted...

Min wage, in my opinion, should be different then a living wage. Min wage should be the lowest amount you can pay a high school student or someone working less then 20 hours a week. Any job that is over 20 hours a week should be required to pay a living wage, which is determined in part by the cost to rent in the area (and updated yearly I would guess).

That's absurd. It's not just high school students taking part time work. And that only incentivizes companies to hire more part time employees and fewer full time employees, making it necessary to take on multiple part time jobs to pay bills.

You can't hire grown adults for less then 20 hours a week for most jobs, it just wouldn't work. And 20+ requires the living wage. You could even basically state anyone over 18 needs to be paid a living wage even for under 20 hours.

Part time work still needs to support someone, and should pay a living wage. Too many companies get around paying medical etc right now by offering less then 30 hours.

Due to companies not giving over 30 hours, many have to work two jobs already (this is only due to benefits usually). There would be no loophole allowing companies to pay less by hiring multiple employees for less then 20 hours. High school students (those under the age of 18) could be paid less, but there would be restrictions on how many such employees you could have, and you would need at least 1 adult employee to supervise each under aged employee.
---

wolfy42 posted...

You can't hire grown adults for less then 20 hours a week for most jobs, it just wouldn't work. And 20+ requires the living wage. You could even basically state anyone over 18 needs to be paid a living wage even for under 20 hours.

And yet companies do. I'm trying to get a 2 shift per week second job, 16 hours. Most of my friends have part time jobs under 20 hours a week in addition to their main job.

Companies already are incentivized to hire part time as they don't have to offer the same insurance benefits or holiday pay.

Don't screw the laborer for taking what they can get, penalize the employer for intentionally offering non livable work.
---

Delicinq4 posted...

wolfy42 posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

Bringing up mentally ill and handicapped people is dishonest to this discussion.

I don't see why it is. They're adult workers and in some circumstances are able to and need to work.

Because they dont even have the opportuntiy to make choices to increase their wage. The government should be making their lives easier and giving them the minimum livable salary + 10%.

Minimum wage is not a minimum livable salary in most places though.

And if you did give that to anyone for free, why would anyone work the 48% of jobs that pay minimum wage, if they could get more for being disables/sick/unable to work etc? Youwould see tons of people suddenly being injuried/handicapped etc.

Choice between working an 80 hour week just to survive barely, or breaking your freaking legs and being stuck in a wheelchair....I think alot of people would take the chair in a second.

Same with jail to be honest, I mean, that is often considered a large reason why many people turn to crime, the alternative for them (in their eyes at least) is working crappy min wage jobs and barely surviving. Crime doesn't pay for the average person, but they still commit them because it's freaking better then the alternative to them.

Im specifically talking about handicapped here so your line avout anyone work is null.

No it isn't, I literally said, why would anyone work if they could become handicapped and make more. In other words, break their legs so they are handicapped etc (or fake a handicap etc), whatever. Why would people work if they would get more for not working?
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

wolfy42 posted...

You can't hire grown adults for less then 20 hours a week for most jobs, it just wouldn't work. And 20+ requires the living wage. You could even basically state anyone over 18 needs to be paid a living wage even for under 20 hours.

And yet companies do. I'm trying to get a 2 shift per week second job, 16 hours. Most of my friends have part time jobs under 20 hours a week in addition to their main job.

Companies already are incentivized to hire part time as they don't have to offer the same insurance benefits or holiday pay.

That is exactly what I was saying. They already hire part time to avoid insurance etc. Change the rules so EVERYONE makes a living wage if they are over 18. Even if you work 8 hours only, you get the living wage. You can hire teenagers for min wage, but must have 1 adult per teenager minimum.
---

See, a large part of the problem is the concept that min wage is meant for teenagers basically, or the un-motivated etc. Fine, if that is the case, make it only for teenagers perhaps for mentally handicapped or handicapped employees that also get goverment assistance etc.

All able bodies adults should get paid a living wage, no matter how many hours they work for you. People need to make enough to live on, and not be required to work two jobs to do so.

40 hours is a fair amount of time to expect a person to work to survive. More then 40 is fine if they want it, for luxuory items, due to having a sick relative they are supporting, because your saving up for something, going to school (or saving for it) etc.

But expecting people to work 60+ hours a week just to barely get by is slavery in my opinion. It's wrong, and it's common right now.
---

Delicinq4 posted...

Why is it the business responsibility to take on the cost of increased wage for the same work? A burger flipper is NOT worth 15/hr. This just hurts business and removes incentive for startups and local business, something that the govt needs. If theyre so determined to enforce that everyone needs to be able to live no matter how useless and lazy they are, why doesnt the Govt just pay them instead of forcing that cost on valuable members of society (business owners)?

I mean, I think minimum wage should be like 4 dollars but thats cause I have a background in economics and y'all dont.

I'm well off, comfortable and will be till I die, but yeah, I feel rage for all the people out there struggling. They deserve a good life as well. There is no reason for them not to have it, there is plenty to go around. Instead, our current setup allows companies to make massive profits, while the people working barely get by.

A burger flipper is freaking WORKING and providing food for people all day long. He flips freaking burgers 40+ hours a week, just to live (if he's lucky) in a little tiny apartment, has no spending money and probably has to eat at where he works almost exclusively due to getting a discount there (so not healthy at all).

Somebody has to do that job and almost 50% of the jobs in this country that pay a similar amount. They have value, they make our lives possible, but they are treated like they have no value (as we don't pay them enough to live based on that work alone).

We say, sorry, your a burger flipper, you need to work at least 60 hours just to barely get by, or be homeless you waste of skin. How is that ok?

I mean, that is exactly what you are saying. Would you go up to a person and tell them they are worthless and they need to work 60 hours a week for you just to get your left overs and live in your dirty shed in the back yard?

Everyone deserves a chance at a good life, a job they can feel proud of, and a way to improve themselves, save for a future, and possibly build a family if they want. There is no reason that can't be available to everyone either, except for extreme greed.
---

Delicinq4 posted...

Why is it the business responsibility to take on the cost of increased wage for the same work? A burger flipper is NOT worth 15/hr. This just hurts business and removes incentive for startups and local business, something that the govt needs. If theyre so determined to enforce that everyone needs to be able to live no matter how useless and lazy they are, why doesnt the Govt just pay them instead of forcing that cost on valuable members of society (business owners)?

I mean, I think minimum wage should be like 4 dollars but thats cause I have a background in economics and y'all dont.

Do you think the government should care more about companies, or people? Honest question.

Yeah that's not how the world works and you know that. It's impossible to have it directly in the middle, so which way should they lean?

Step 1) Save up
Step 2) Move to Europe or Canada
---

@Dynalo posted...

I thought about commenting on the health insurance thing as $20 seemed very low... But not American so I don't actually know how much it goes for.

Oh yeah, according to our president health insurance is $12 a year.



@Jen0125
---

Raising min wage by itself just helps the Gov more then anyone else. More taxes basically, not much better life for the bottom 50% of workers in the US.

The easy solution is to raise the basic deduction everyone can take on their taxes to an livable wage in the US. In other words, you don't get taxed for the first $24,000 you make, but get taxed more after that to compensate (and only for what you make over 24k of course).

24k is $2000 a month, more then enough for people to live on just about anywhere in the US. That would be the first step.

The next step is to either ensure there is low cost housing available (under 1k for a 1 bedroom), or increase the basic minimum anyone can get paid to enable them to make over 2x the average cost of housing with a 40 hour work week.

Both of these should be implemented and you would have far less crime, far less people not working, on disability etc.

Basically if your making $10 an hour, you get taxed nothing on that if your working a 40 hour week ($1600 a month).

If average rental costs in your area are $800 for a 1 bedroom, then you can't pay ANYONE less then $10 an hour (enabling them to pay rent with 80 hours of work (2 weeks).

That would be fair, and enable people working the lowest paying jobs to live some kind of life.

I can not believe anyone thinks it's ok for a large % of Americans to need to work over 80 hours per month just to afford the cheapest place they can live.
---

lmao $1 a month for insurance.

k
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Dynalo posted...

I thought about commenting on the health insurance thing as $20 seemed very low... But not American so I don't actually know how much it goes for.

Oh yeah, according to our president health insurance is $12 a year.

Hahahaha. Oh boy that's amazing. A buck a month. That's a lot of months to pay off a single doctors visit.
---

Bump for evening crew.
---

So poor people don't eat? That would solve a lot of problems...
---

I've always felt that if everyone cared for each other, we could make this world a utopia. I have always tried to help everyone around me, respect them, and make my life and those around me lives as happy/fun as possible.

It's crazy that a large number of humans are fine with an equally large number living in poverty or barely getting by, with no security and the fear of not having a roof over their head.

I get not wanting people to have a free ride, and that they contribute, but not wanting people to have a way to support themselves and their family without becoming basically slaves, is just wrong.
---

Delicinq4 posted...

Why is it the business responsibility to take on the cost of increased wage for the same work? A burger flipper is NOT worth 15/hr.

Why should the tax payer pay to subsidize the companies employees? If the company isn't paying a livable wage more tax payer money has to be spent on welfare programs. Just make a livable wage rule or a lowest worker to highest worker ratio cap and the employees make enough to not take government money.
---

Plenty of money for food in that budget if you consider a frisbee food and choke on it to death. You can tell this was put together by some corporate ass fuck who also counts the second it takes to put pickles on a burger. Turns out mcemployeeism isn't just a minimum wage idiom and infects all facets of our society no matter how much we prestige certain occupations.

While it is pretty tough (I make $8 an hour for 7.25 hour days), those people who complain about making minimum wage while smoking their second pack of cigarettes that day or tapping away at their new iPhone can get bent. The ones popping out kids left and right like condoms/birth control don't exist can get doubly bent.

Also I don't have a second job, but I do make sure to work six days a week, seven if I can. You have to do what you can to move up and make more $$$.
---

Wow, I get $1588 per month and I budget much better than that
---

I used to be in the hyper conservative crowd on the whole wage and healthcare debates (my whole family was, and I was raised that way). Then we got hit with a series of crap while I was in college, that was fully unavoidable, and knocked us from upper-middle class to poverty levels in a year.

I lost my scholarship due to illness, and maxed out several credit lines with medical debt, and accrued tons of student loan debt to finish school from there.

Despite applying for jobs almost everyday since I graduated 2 years ago, I am still stuck at a crappy retail job (making between $11 and $12 an hour depending on the day of the week), partially supporting my mother. I don't exactly have the money to move (still paying off my debts). And there are legitimately jobs around here that require degrees and/or experience, that are paying at or around minimum wage (assuming they are not unpaid internships). Things like paralegals or medical assistants, are being payed less than $10 an hour here. And some of those jobs want you to have 8 years or more of experience.

Since I actually hit the real world, my opinions have changed on it from how its described in conservative talking points.

At least my credit score is very good (2nd highest tier). I am really good at paying my debts on time. I just can't afford much else.

Isn't that budget chart like 10 years old and fake?
---

No food for you poor bastard. You can eat the fries that fall on the floor.

---

Delicinq4 posted...

Why is it the business responsibility to take on the cost of increased wage for the same work? A burger flipper is NOT worth 15/hr. This just hurts business and removes incentive for startups and local business, something that the govt needs. If theyre so determined to enforce that everyone needs to be able to live no matter how useless and lazy they are, why doesnt the Govt just pay them instead of forcing that cost on valuable members of society (business owners)?

I mean, I think minimum wage should be like 4 dollars but thats cause I have a background in economics and y'all dont.

well I was sort of with you up to here. how can you say "[improving your position in life] only works if not everyone does it", but then also say the min. wage shouldn't be higher? that means you're saying that there's a large chunk of society that *necessarily* must live these crappy min. wage lives, and then you also call those people "lazy and useless". this seems highly contradictory.
---

So fuckin out of touch
---

Delicinq4 posted...

So out of touch with my 130k salary @ 27 years of age. Have fun in the slums, poors.

There it is!

shadowsword87 posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

So out of touch with my 130k salary @ 27 years of age. Have fun in the slums, poors.

There it is!

lol where did that even come from
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

So out of touch with my 130k salary @ 27 years of age. Have fun in the slums, poors.

There it is!

lol where did that even come from

I think he just got frustrated because he was the only one arguing his point, and everyone else was against him.

shadowsword87 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

So out of touch with my 130k salary @ 27 years of age. Have fun in the slums, poors.

There it is!

lol where did that even come from

I think he just got frustrated because he was the only one arguing his point, and everyone else was against him.

Well he sure made the case for how very far out of touch he is.

We should all just bootstrap and make 130k and devalue his labor
---

Delicinq4 posted...

So out of touch with my 130k salary @ 27 years of age. Have fun in the slums, poors.

yeah this makes you seem super in touch
---

AverageBoss posted...

I used to be in the hyper conservative crowd on the whole wage and healthcare debates (my whole family was, and I was raised that way). Then we got hit with a series of crap while I was in college, that was fully unavoidable, and knocked us from upper-middle class to poverty levels in a year.

I lost my scholarship due to illness, and maxed out several credit lines with medical debt, and accrued tons of student loan debt to finish school from there.

Despite applying for jobs almost everyday since I graduated 2 years ago, I am still stuck at a crappy retail job (making between $11 and $12 an hour depending on the day of the week), partially supporting my mother. I don't exactly have the money to move (still paying off my debts). And there are legitimately jobs around here that require degrees and/or experience, that are paying at or around minimum wage (assuming they are not unpaid internships). Things like paralegals or medical assistants, are being payed less than $10 an hour here. And some of those jobs want you to have 8 years or more of experience.

Since I actually hit the real world, my opinions have changed on it from how its described in conservative talking points.

At least my credit score is very good (2nd highest tier). I am really good at paying my debts on time. I just can't afford much else.

I've seen jobs on USAjob.gov that require a phd and 10+ years experience and pay is around 40k
---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I've seen jobs on USAjob.gov that require a phd and 10+ years experience and pay is around 40k

That doens't sound right...can't see someone with that level of experience being a GS-7. What agency was it with?
---