What people with minimum wage can really afford in the US?

[Huckleberry Finn]

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

Because I'm European I can't really know. What people with minimum wage can afford if she or he works 40 hours in week? Can she or he get some government welfare? What is situation with children? And I want some MODERATE people to answer this.

[dazzleman]

The minimum wage is very low, and people living on it cannot afford much.

Perhaps a husband and wife who both earned minimum wage could eke out a modest living if they pooled their money and spent carefully, but a single person would have a very tough time.

Which brings me to my next point -- minimum wage jobs are really for teenagers or those who work part time, are on the fringes of the labor force, etc.  Few people remain in minimum wage jobs as their careers progress, unless they have a serious lack of skills, reliability or work ethic.  It is not intended to be a wage on which it is possible to support a wife, three kids and a dog in a lovely four-bedroom colonial in one of the better suburbs.  It's meant to be a place to start.

I get very irritated when I hear stories about single women with kids who talk about how they're struggling to live on the minimum wage.  Why did they have kids outside of marriage if they had no job skills to support them?  I get sick of people trying to make others feel guilty because they're suffering the consequences of stupid decisions.

[opebo]

Hucklebarry, please ignore dazzleman's disgusting post.  He likes to abuse the poor for what the rich have done to them.

In reality, most minimum wage workers are not teenagers, they are adults.  And an even larger precentage of adults in the US make just above minimum, but still poverty level wages - say $6-12/hour.  Contrary to dazzleman's unrealistic depiction, most lower-class workers - those who were not rich enough to buy a college education - face a very low ceiling on their potential earnings.  Even the majority of college educateds top out at what would have been considered a lower-middle-class income just 30 years ago, and even an expensive advanced degree only gaurantees middle class status, not any sort of affluence - for example one hears of engineers toiling for a mere $60,000/year. 

The wage situation in the US is truly frightful, and I'm sure a visitor from Scandinavia or the Benelux countries would be shocked at the pervasive poverty and desperation.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Heh. Two different way to see the world here.   I would like to see some calculations. 

[A18]

Why do you care?

[dazzleman]

A very low percentage of adults are living on the minimum wage.  I will try to get some statistics, but the reality is that most adults, even those without a college education, have incomes considerably above the minimum wage.

When listening to what opebo says, you must take into account that he has never worked a day in his life, and has no understanding of the working world.

He also is a major hypocrite in that he constantly blasts working people who happen to earn a good living while himself living off inherited money.  He talks incessantly of redistribution, but wouldn't dream of redistributing any of his own money.  If he means what he says, he should get a full-time job and give the money away to charity, since he obviously doesn't need it.

I don't deny that there are many people with a low ceiling on their earnings, for several reasons, generally having to do with the fact that they don't offer much in the way of skills, work ethic, etc. that would make somebody want to pay very much to employ them.

I have seen the power that people who have developed their skills and working reputation can have in the job market.  This is something that opebo, for all his talk, knows nothing about.

Much of life is the cards we deal to ourselves.  There are some people who have such terrible situations in life that they can never recover.  I sympathize very much with these people.  But there are many more who could have done more to deal themselves a better hand in life, but didn't, for a number of reasons, none of them good.  I cannot feel the same degree of sympathy for them.  I especially don't feel sorry for people who loudly proclaim their right to make stupid decisions, such as having multiple children without a husband and with no means of supporting them, and then demanding that others are responsible for making their life easy.

The picture that opebo paints of life in the US is highly skewed, and as a foreigner, you should know that, Huck.

[Blue Rectangle]

Some figures involved with this graph:
--The average household income for teenagers making minimum wage was $54k (comfortably middle class)
--48.1 percent of adult minimum wage earners lived in families with incomes two or more times the poverty level (certainly not poor)
--The average family income of minimum wage workers aged 22 and up was around $32,000 (even the average adult making minimum wage is twice the poverty level)

In response to Huck's question...
There are very different options available to different minimum wage earners.  This is because, as the data above shows, earning minimum wage has very little to do with actual poverty.  Only a small minority of minimum wage earners are poor, and the majority are either kids living in middle class households or adults making more than double the poverty line.  This is why increases to the minimum wage have nearly no impact on poverty.  A worker making minimum wage, who has children and who is the sole wage earner in a household, can access many government programs, including food aid, housing subsidies, direct cash aid, etc.

[opebo]

Please remember, Huggleberry Finn, that what you see the Republicans posting here will be prepared propaganda - their party has put a lot of effort into the pretense that the American working class is fine, just fine. 

Why not just go visit the US and have a look at the horrible slums everywhere?

[dazzleman]

Please remember, Huggleberry Finn, that what you see the Republicans posting here will be prepared propaganda - their party has put a lot of effort into the pretense that the American working class is fine, just fine. 

Why not just go visit the US and have a look at the horrible slums everywhere?

A low percentage of the population lives in slums.  Again, your picture is horribly skewed.  Slums are a problem, but they're not 'everywhere.'

[TheresNoMoney]

I have no idea how people who work minimum wage or just above minimum wage get by.

$5.15. an hour * 40 hours per week= $206-7.65% Social Security/Medicare tax - 15% federal withholding = $159.24 take home pay per week

Monthly take home pay = $636.96

Where I live, the lowest rent you could possibly find would be about $450-$600 for a studio apartment. If you have a roommate, you can find a decent 2-bedroom for about $1,000 (not counting utilities)/month.  And how do you buy food and find transportation? And what about health insurance?

Again, I have no idea how these people get by. The minimum wage is woefully inadequate and should be raised to about $7.50 an hour over the next 3-4 years.

I am not a "living wage" advocate, but the minimum wage needs to be raised ASAP.

[TheresNoMoney]

Please remember, Huggleberry Finn, that what you see the Republicans posting here will be prepared propaganda - their party has put a lot of effort into the pretense that the American working class is fine, just fine.

Opebo is exactly right about this. The Republican party has put a lot work into shifting America's concerns away from the working class, and in many cases against the working class (just look at their constant anti-union rhetoric). Sadly, many lower-educated and rich Americans have bought it hook, line and sinker.

Why not just go visit the US and have a look at the horrible slums everywhere?

Opebo is exxagerating a bit on this point. The U.S. does not have that many true "slums", but poverty is still quite common. It is not always obvious, but it's there.

[dazzleman]

I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage somewhat, but it can never be a 'living wage.'  Still, it has not kept up with inflation in the past 20 years, and I do think it should be raised, at least for full-time workers.

Scoonie, I think that your theory about Republicans and unions implicitly assumes that unions are good for workers.  I don't think they really are at this point.

Flyers once made a post that said it all.  He talked about how his dad went on strike against the place where he worked for a long time, and that a short time after the strike was settled, the company went under.

Unions are to some extent a necessary evil, but they're not necessarily good for workers, or at least all workers.  They flatten pay scales, disincentivize merit, and reward older, often less productive workers, over younger workers who are more productive.  They also reward and protect mediocrity and incompetence in practice, while effectively penalizing extra initiative.

I am very much for the betterment of lives for people in all lines of work.  I don't really think unions are the way to go about it today.

[John Dibble]

I have no idea how people who work minimum wage or just above minimum wage get by.

$5.15. an hour * 40 hours per week= $206-7.65% Social Security/Medicare tax - 15% federal withholding = $159.24 take home pay per week

Monthly take home pay = $636.96

Where I live, the lowest rent you could possibly find would be about $450-$600 for a studio apartment. If you have a roommate, you can find a decent 2-bedroom for about $1,000 (not counting utilities)/month.

Not absolutely sure you will, but you might find 2-bedrooms under that here: http://www.apartments.com/

I found some deals earlier rebutting opebo in the opeboism thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They get by through stretching their dollars and minimizing their non-necessities. It's also helpful if they live with someone else, like a girlfriend, wife, or simly a roommate - you can cut costs by going in on things together. Having a two bedroom apartment, living with your girlfriend and a roommate(w/ or without his own girlfriend) there would also stretch your dollar futher. (on this type of subject, illegal hispanic immigrants who make even lower than the minimum wage will often have from 4 to even 10 people in a 2-bedroom apartment, allowing them to really stretch their dollars, though they have to live with sharing beds or sleeping on couches ) Not an ideal situation for sure, but you can get by like this - do keep in mind the conditions people used to endure before our lifetimes were much worse. Also do consider these people probably get most of their federal income tax returned to them when they file, so they get that once a year boon.

And one thing dazzleman is correct about is that most adults working minimum wage don't stay there for long. Good workers need to be given an incentive to stay on the job, so companies are unlikely to keep them at the lowest possible wage if they produce results above the minimum. Everette is also right in that costs vary from place to place, so it is a definite factor to be taken into consideration - for instance, it might not need to be raised in a state with lower cost.


And to opebo - you can call what they've shown propaganda if you so wish, but until you can back up your own argument with statistics and facts you might want to shut your mouth.

[TheresNoMoney]

This is a good article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_us/income_gap

"The poorest one-fifth of families, the report said, had an average income of $16,780 from 2000-03, while the top fifth of families had an average income of $122,150 — more than seven times as much. Middle-income families' average income was $46,875.

Trudi Renwick, an economist with the union-backed Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, said globalization, the decline of manufacturing jobs, the expansion of low-wage service jobs, immigration and the weakening of unions have hurt those on the lower end of the economic scale."

The U.S. currently has the highest income gap it's had since 1929 (just before the Great Depression hit).

[°Leprechaun]

Well, first of all the minimum wage should be at least $7.70, at least for full time workers 21 or older.
We also need a more progressive tax system. Those on minimum wage are paying far too much.
We also need to be spending far less on wars and on the military (except for military pay, of course). We have to cut spending somewhere and this seems like a good place to start.

[opebo]

(on this type of subject, illegal hispanic immigrants who make even lower than the minimum wage will often have from 4 to even 10 people in a 2-bedroom apartment, allowing them to really stretch their dollars, though they have to live with sharing beds or sleeping on couches ) Not an ideal situation for sure, but you can get by like this - do keep in mind the conditions people used to endure before our lifetimes were much worse.

Yes, conditions used to be horrible, a century ago, and yes, they were considerably better 30 years ago, and are better in Europe - the reason is Political action.  The capitalist economy will not make conditions better for most people unless we legislate that it do so.  Unionization, high minimum wages, work regulations, long mandated vacations, shorter workweeks, and redistribution would improve life for most people, and to some extent did for a brief period.  Why does everyone assume that the hard won (and politically won) 40 hour work week is the limit?  I say a 32 hour work week is the next step.

[dazzleman]

There's no denying that the income gap has grown substantially since 1980.  

There are many reasons for this, most of which are not in direct control of government policy.  Things like, on the low end, the decline of manufacturing, decay in family structure leading to more children growing up without fathers to support them, and on the high end, the explosion of highly paid jobs in newer high-tech industries, productivity increases caused by more automation, and even the feminist movement, which brought talented women into the workforce on a fuller basis.

There are many moving parts to the whole thing.  When most people become better off, the poor become worse off in comparison, even if they have not fallen in absolute terms when their income is measured in dollars.  When the economy is strong, prices of certain things like housing increase considerably, and this is very tough on people with low incomes.

There is no right answer; it's about finding the right balance.  Life is a lot like the game of monopoly; if you don't become some type of owner at the earliest opportunity, things will always be stacked against you.  I'm not sure this can ever really be changed.

[dazzleman]

I should also note that comparing income figures across regions is useless, since the cost of living varies widely across the country.  A certain income could be poverty level in New York or Connecticut, and upper middle class in Mississippi.

[A18]

The income gap of course has nothing to do with economic well-being. Moreover, I see no reason why we should just pick out the bottom fifth and top fifth and measure the gap there (I certainly hope it isn't in dollar terms).

[opebo]

There's no denying that the income gap has grown substantially since 1980. 
 
I'm not sure this can ever really be changed.

Of course it can, dazzleman - it can all be changed by the State.  See my post above for the appropriate legislation.

The income gap of course has nothing to do with economic well-being.

Yes, it does, worker.

[A18]

It is possible for the arbitrarily-defined income gap to rise drastically during a time of great prosperity for every person alive.

[opebo]

Feel free to contribute to the alleviation of poverty, opebo.

No, Everrett, charity is offensive.  The oppressed should rise up and take from their owners.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Couple of points...

1. The *federal* minimum wage hasn't been raised in the U.S for a while now; as such it's too low to be very effective (due to inflation) and individual states/local authorities raising their own minimum wages hasn't been a great success due to the inevitable boundary effect. The problem with raising it to the amount that it should be at, is that such a sudden large rise would hurt small businesses (and I mean genuinely small businesses; not places that employ a couple of hundred) which operate on very tight margins. The best solution would probably be to increase it up to where it should be, peg it to inflation (so this problem doesn't occur anymore) and pay genuine small businesses some sort of one-off compensation.

2. An income gap is only a *serious* problem if the main cause is the poor getting poorer. If it isn't, then the cure can often be worse than the disease (ie; if a rising tide *sometimes* lifts all boats, then a hurricane *always* sinks all ships...). Income gaps and so on are an extremely poor measure of inequality anyway.

3. I don't see what Unions have to do with this; the sort of workers that get paided the minimum wage are rarely Unionised (even over here that's the case)... in the Anglophone world, Union membership is generally made up of blue collar workers (especially medium skilled ones) and public sector workers; the private service sector doesn't have much truck with Unions. And the effects of Unions depends very much on what sort of Unions we're talking about; they vary a lot from country-to-country and industry-to-industry.

[opebo]

Feel free to contribute to the alleviation of poverty, opebo.

No, Everrett, charity is offensive.  The oppressed should rise up and take from their owners.

Feel free to help the oppressed rise up and take from their owners, opebo.

I am!  That is what my posts on here are for - to educate the working class.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, Everrett, charity is offensive.

What you're proposing *is* charity...