5 ms·

$15/hour in some cases is enough to move above the maximum for Medicaid (133% of FPL for various family/household sizes). Many low-income workers DO NOT want t

$15/hour in some cases is enough to move above the maximum for Medicaid (133% of FPL for various family/household sizes). Many low-income workers DO NOT want to lose Medicaid as it is a big benefit, works well, esp. for large families (consider a grandma that has adopted three of her grandchildren and needs to care for them, I talked to one last week). I own a small business with a few part time employees, and I run into people asking for less pay but more in other benefits (PTO, holidays, etc.) Will be interesting to see the impact of this.

itsdrewmiller 8y ago
Do any of them ask for less pay with no compensating benefits? If not it seems like this is still a good result, if not perfectly optimized to take advantage of benefits for those with low income.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Just to add another anecdata.. A close friend of mine owned several Subway franchises. This was always a double edged sword for trying to figure out how to reward the best employees. Virtually every single time a person was given a significant raise, they asked for fewer hours. They were comfortable living on $X/wk and now they could make that working fewer hours. This is perhaps good for the worker but obviously bad for the store. The best employees are working less and less, decreasing the quality of work done in the store. This may or may not have had anything to do with qualifying for benefits of some sort. But it is a very difficult problem a lot of small business owners face.
  - b_tterc_p 8y ago
    That’s an interesting problem because social support systems are thus actually pushing people into continued poverty rather than helping them get out.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      I think it's more difficult than that. They are happy with their current living situation. In over a decade of owning Subway stores not a single person took their newfound wealth/leisure to improve their lot in life. When they left it was always to other Subway-esque jobs. Nobody took night classes or anything of the sort. Sure, some people took a job at Subway while they were in college or whatever, but what I mean is that getting that big raise was not a deciding factor in taking the steps to improve their financial situation. From there I get a lot of mixed feelings about projection. Who am I to tell someone that they should increase their income if they're happy with their lives? Or perhaps they don't understand/see a path from here to greater economic success? If that's the case, we have a different problem. I really don't know, it's very confusing. It's hard to consider public policy in a way that doesn't project my own sense of values on others.
      - brokenmachine 8y ago
        > getting that big raise was not a deciding factor in taking the steps to improve their financial situation How big a raise are we talking here? It's a fast food job. I doubt we're talking CEO-level bonuses. The raise is not going to be enough for them to move from being workers to being owners.
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        >How big a raise are we talking here? We're talking on the order of several dollars an hour, which is a lot when you're making minimum wage. >The raise is not going to be enough for them to move from being workers to being owners. I feel like this is intentionally obtuse. It may not directly make them an owner, but if they leveraged that raise it could put them on the path there. They could take management classes at a community college or something. Even without the classes they could double down on the behavior that was returning a good benefit and learn those management skills "on the job." Instead they reduced their hours to maintain the same weekly take home pay. Of course there's a nearly infinite number of options unrelated to Subway they could have spent their new money/time/leverage going towards. But not one time did it happen in ten years and across several stores.
thrower123 8y ago
It's not just medicaid, there's typically a whole range of low-income benefits that have income cliffs. It's a little screwed that they don't phase out gradually with income, but that is often the way that they are setup. So it is possible to hit situations where earning an extra dollar on the books can cost you thousands...

itsdrewmiller 8y ago

Do any of them ask for less pay with no compensating benefits? If not it seems like this is still a good result, if not perfectly optimized to take advantage of benefits for those with low income.

Consultant32452 8y ago
Just to add another anecdata.. A close friend of mine owned several Subway franchises. This was always a double edged sword for trying to figure out how to reward the best employees. Virtually every single time a person was given a significant raise, they asked for fewer hours. They were comfortable living on $X/wk and now they could make that working fewer hours. This is perhaps good for the worker but obviously bad for the store. The best employees are working less and less, decreasing the quality of work done in the store. This may or may not have had anything to do with qualifying for benefits of some sort. But it is a very difficult problem a lot of small business owners face.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  That’s an interesting problem because social support systems are thus actually pushing people into continued poverty rather than helping them get out.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    I think it's more difficult than that. They are happy with their current living situation. In over a decade of owning Subway stores not a single person took their newfound wealth/leisure to improve their lot in life. When they left it was always to other Subway-esque jobs. Nobody took night classes or anything of the sort. Sure, some people took a job at Subway while they were in college or whatever, but what I mean is that getting that big raise was not a deciding factor in taking the steps to improve their financial situation. From there I get a lot of mixed feelings about projection. Who am I to tell someone that they should increase their income if they're happy with their lives? Or perhaps they don't understand/see a path from here to greater economic success? If that's the case, we have a different problem. I really don't know, it's very confusing. It's hard to consider public policy in a way that doesn't project my own sense of values on others.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      > getting that big raise was not a deciding factor in taking the steps to improve their financial situation How big a raise are we talking here? It's a fast food job. I doubt we're talking CEO-level bonuses. The raise is not going to be enough for them to move from being workers to being owners.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        >How big a raise are we talking here? We're talking on the order of several dollars an hour, which is a lot when you're making minimum wage. >The raise is not going to be enough for them to move from being workers to being owners. I feel like this is intentionally obtuse. It may not directly make them an owner, but if they leveraged that raise it could put them on the path there. They could take management classes at a community college or something. Even without the classes they could double down on the behavior that was returning a good benefit and learn those management skills "on the job." Instead they reduced their hours to maintain the same weekly take home pay. Of course there's a nearly infinite number of options unrelated to Subway they could have spent their new money/time/leverage going towards. But not one time did it happen in ten years and across several stores.

thrower123 8y ago

It's not just medicaid, there's typically a whole range of low-income benefits that have income cliffs. It's a little screwed that they don't phase out gradually with income, but that is often the way that they are setup. So it is possible to hit situations where earning an extra dollar on the books can cost you thousands...