3 ms·

When you’re paid minimum wage in the US, and you’re not permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to hold down multiple jobs; you probably also do

When you’re paid minimum wage in the US, and you’re not permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to hold down multiple jobs; you probably also don’t get things like healthcare from any of them. Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your jobs.

soperj 6y ago
if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.
- dcrn 6y ago
  Many times, if you're having to take on another job, you don't have the luxury of "time" to find the best one, e.g. pays well, has benefits, etc. You take the first or second job that comes to you and work for as much time as possible at that one as well. Speaking from experience, people don't take on multiple jobs just to work them for an hour or two a day.
- ruined 6y ago
  no, working an additional job does not give you more hours in a day. rather it consumes time. what do you do at work?
  - soperj 6y ago
    I'm responding to what's written. If you have a job at walmart, they can't both have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at walmart and have another job.
    - Cederfjard 6y ago
      ...but they can have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, and to the other job? You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.
      - soperj 6y ago
        if they have the other job already, then they clearly had time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's one or the other.
        astrange 6y ago
        This is covered by search theory in economics. (economists do not use "supply and demand" for jobs, rather they consider things like search time and monopsony power.)
- vertex-four 6y ago
  If you have multiple jobs and must take every hour they ask of you, you clearly do not have time to find another job; you are very likely working more than a full-time job without adequate protections. Look, here’s how it goes: 1) you have no job 2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money 3) you take the second job that comes your way so that you can survive 4) you have no time to actually do anything towards getting a better job Understand? This is why jobs that pay less than what is needed to survive are bad for individuals and bad for society; people have to take them. Nobody is going to help you survive otherwise.
  - soperj 6y ago
    if you have multiple jobs, you already have another job, so it was clearly possible.
    - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
      No. It means it’s possible to find a second job when you only have one. It doesn’t mean that once you’ve found a second job you still have time to search for an improved job.
    - jackson1442 6y ago
      The difference here is that the second job you have is likely going to be just as terrible as your first, where the improvement comes not from having a better job but simply having access to more hours and therefore more hourly pay. Searching for a job that is _mechanically better_ (think office job versus min-wage retail) is significantly more challenging than finding a min-wage job. For example, most salaried or otherwise higher paying jobs require multiple rounds of interviews while many min-wage jobs will hire you on the spot to fill a staff position.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      You’re intentionally not getting it. I don’t know how to make this clearer than what I wrote, especially as you haven’t actually responded to what i wrote.

soperj 6y ago

if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.

dcrn 6y ago
Many times, if you're having to take on another job, you don't have the luxury of "time" to find the best one, e.g. pays well, has benefits, etc. You take the first or second job that comes to you and work for as much time as possible at that one as well. Speaking from experience, people don't take on multiple jobs just to work them for an hour or two a day.
ruined 6y ago
no, working an additional job does not give you more hours in a day. rather it consumes time. what do you do at work?
- soperj 6y ago
  I'm responding to what's written. If you have a job at walmart, they can't both have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at walmart and have another job.
  - Cederfjard 6y ago
    ...but they can have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, and to the other job? You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.
    - soperj 6y ago
      if they have the other job already, then they clearly had time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's one or the other.
      - astrange 6y ago
        This is covered by search theory in economics. (economists do not use "supply and demand" for jobs, rather they consider things like search time and monopsony power.)
vertex-four 6y ago
If you have multiple jobs and must take every hour they ask of you, you clearly do not have time to find another job; you are very likely working more than a full-time job without adequate protections. Look, here’s how it goes: 1) you have no job 2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money 3) you take the second job that comes your way so that you can survive 4) you have no time to actually do anything towards getting a better job Understand? This is why jobs that pay less than what is needed to survive are bad for individuals and bad for society; people have to take them. Nobody is going to help you survive otherwise.
- soperj 6y ago
  if you have multiple jobs, you already have another job, so it was clearly possible.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    No. It means it’s possible to find a second job when you only have one. It doesn’t mean that once you’ve found a second job you still have time to search for an improved job.
  - jackson1442 6y ago
    The difference here is that the second job you have is likely going to be just as terrible as your first, where the improvement comes not from having a better job but simply having access to more hours and therefore more hourly pay. Searching for a job that is _mechanically better_ (think office job versus min-wage retail) is significantly more challenging than finding a min-wage job. For example, most salaried or otherwise higher paying jobs require multiple rounds of interviews while many min-wage jobs will hire you on the spot to fill a staff position.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    You’re intentionally not getting it. I don’t know how to make this clearer than what I wrote, especially as you haven’t actually responded to what i wrote.