4 ms·
"How can you feed yourself on $8 an hour with a kid and pay rent?" Welfare. When I worked for $8 an hour, my coworkers who were single parents had Medicaid, sub
by jrs95 9y ago
"How can you feed yourself on $8 an hour with a kid and pay rent?"
Welfare. When I worked for $8 an hour, my coworkers who were single parents had Medicaid, subsidized child care, and could get basically whatever they wanted in terms of groceries (plus they were still spending money on booze, weed, and cigarettes), whereas I had no health insurance and less than $100 a month after fixed expenses, not including food. I was eligible for a tiny amount of food stamps and Medicaid after the expansion, but I opted to get a second job instead.
- gizmo 9y agoRaising a child takes a lot of time and energy. All of your energy, really. Working full time and raising a child on your own isn't easy, even if you get medicare, medicaid, subsidized housing and food stamps. It's incredibly hard for single parents to escape poverty. Being young, single, and broke sucks, but the situation isn't nearly as hopeless.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- s73ver 9y agoWhy on earth should I be subsidizing that company, though? I agree that making sure that person, and people like them, should have the support needed to make sure that both them and their child are fed and housed and generally taken care of. Why that means I should be implicitly subsidizing the business, instead of them being obligated to pay a living wage, is beyond me.
- blfr 9y agoIt's easy to flip this argument. You're not subsidizing that company. The company is subsidizing welfare. A person making at least some money requires less money in form of social transfers. In the end, is it better to subsidize that person's wages or have them become completely unemployable? This is not a leading question. Perhaps it would be better to just pay them to be a parent but it's not obvious to me.
- zanny 9y agoIts not easy, because the company is not a charity. They are not giving away money at a loss to poor people to reduce welfare burden. They are hiring them for the purposes of making a profit. If they had to provide a full living wage to those on food stamps, they would either A. still be making a profit and eat the losses or B. stop making a profit and promptly fire them. There is no altruism here.
- icebraining 9y agoblfr is arguing that it's what they're doing, not that it's their goal.
- s73ver 9y agoNo, I disagree. The company is getting away with paying less because of welfare. And I reject the false choice you presented. The company should be paying a living wage, plain and simple. If they can't, then they go out of business. One which is better run will take it's place.
- blfr 9y agoAnd the government is getting away with providing less welfare because the company is paying. The company probably can pay more, the large ones always can, but then they would hire someone else. At a higher price point, a better employee will take their place.
- s73ver 9y agoNo. The government is still having to provide welfare because the company is shirking it's responsibilities. I'm sorry, but I will not accept the argument that it is ok for a company to have their employees on welfare. They are a for-profit entity. I should not be subsidizing them because they choose not to pay their employees enough.
- BigJono 9y ago
- zanny 9y agoBecause you spend a lot less on politicians than Walmart and friends do.