5 ms·

>It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day Well thankfully we don't have to imagine, people have researched this: https://livingwage.mi

by jolux 6y ago

>It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day Well thankfully we don't have to imagine, people have researched this: https://livingwage.mit.edu/ https://livingwage.mit.edu/. According to these data, the living wage across the US in 2019 was $16.54: https://livingwage.mit.edu/articles/61-new-living-wage-data-for-now-available-on-the-tool https://livingwage.mit.edu/articles/61-new-living-wage-data-.... So it's not at all inconceivable that the federal minimum is a poverty wage, in fact it almost certainly is.

gruez 6y ago
But that has nothing to do with GP's claim? GP was talking about your "net pay is below zero", meaning that the job itself pays negative. eg. you get paid $50/day but spent $55/day to earn it. Your comment seems to be about the minimum wage not being able to sustain a given living standard, eg. you get paid $50/day but you need to spend $55/day to survive.
- jolux 6y ago
  I read their comment differently than you did, but even if I hadn't I don't quite understand your objection. By definition if you're spending $55/day to survive, you're spending $55/day to earn your pay, if nothing more. The situation you describe is not sustainable either. Please clarify.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    He is making a distinction between cost to survive (I.e. food, shelter, etc) and cost to have the job (I.e. transport). "net pay is below zero" means (In his interpretation) that the cost of having the job is greater than the amount the job pays. This is unrelated to the cost of surviving.
- colpabar 6y ago
  First off, it's not $50 per day, because you're probably paying income tax. But let's assume it is. Second, it's not really "per day", that's an average. Most bills recur monthly. Assuming a month of four weeks, and working 5 days per week, that's 20 * $50 = $1000 per month. Doesn't that seem like an extremely low number to pay for rent, transportation, food, health care, kids, utilities, etc? I pay more for that in rent every month.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >seem like an extremely low number to pay for rent, transportation, food, health care, kids, utilities, etc? everything in that list except for transportation are sunk costs. In other words, you're paying for those regardless of whether you have the job or not.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > you're paying for those regardless of whether you have the job or not. ...unless you're not paying for those because you literally don't have any money. So yeah, food is a sunk cost, sure. But that sinking will kill you without a job.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >...unless you're not paying for those because you literally don't have any money. That's not how accounting works. If you got a FAANG job that paid $300k/year, then proceeded to blow $60k on a tesla, your net pay for the job isn't $240k.
        inetknght 6y ago
        Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Also, that $60k on a Tesla for the FAANG worker amounts to a small percent of the worker's disposable income. But that $2k amounts to over 100% of the minimum wage worker's disposable income.
        gruez 6y ago
        > Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Way to miss the point. Whether the item is a tesla or a can of beans is irrelevant. The point is that if previously you couldn't afford X, after getting a new job you could afford X, then you can't say that X is a cost/expense of getting the job.

by jolux 6y ago

gruez 6y ago

But that has nothing to do with GP's claim? GP was talking about your "net pay is below zero", meaning that the job itself pays negative. eg. you get paid $50/day but spent $55/day to earn it. Your comment seems to be about the minimum wage not being able to sustain a given living standard, eg. you get paid $50/day but you need to spend $55/day to survive.

jolux 6y ago
I read their comment differently than you did, but even if I hadn't I don't quite understand your objection. By definition if you're spending $55/day to survive, you're spending $55/day to earn your pay, if nothing more. The situation you describe is not sustainable either. Please clarify.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  He is making a distinction between cost to survive (I.e. food, shelter, etc) and cost to have the job (I.e. transport). "net pay is below zero" means (In his interpretation) that the cost of having the job is greater than the amount the job pays. This is unrelated to the cost of surviving.
colpabar 6y ago
First off, it's not $50 per day, because you're probably paying income tax. But let's assume it is. Second, it's not really "per day", that's an average. Most bills recur monthly. Assuming a month of four weeks, and working 5 days per week, that's 20 * $50 = $1000 per month. Doesn't that seem like an extremely low number to pay for rent, transportation, food, health care, kids, utilities, etc? I pay more for that in rent every month.
- gruez 6y ago
  >seem like an extremely low number to pay for rent, transportation, food, health care, kids, utilities, etc? everything in that list except for transportation are sunk costs. In other words, you're paying for those regardless of whether you have the job or not.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > you're paying for those regardless of whether you have the job or not. ...unless you're not paying for those because you literally don't have any money. So yeah, food is a sunk cost, sure. But that sinking will kill you without a job.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >...unless you're not paying for those because you literally don't have any money. That's not how accounting works. If you got a FAANG job that paid $300k/year, then proceeded to blow $60k on a tesla, your net pay for the job isn't $240k.
      - inetknght 6y ago
        Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Also, that $60k on a Tesla for the FAANG worker amounts to a small percent of the worker's disposable income. But that $2k amounts to over 100% of the minimum wage worker's disposable income.
        gruez 6y ago
        > Right, but at that minimum wage job you're not going to blow that $60k on a Tesla. You're not even going to blow $10 to go look at a Tesla. You're going to blow $2k on a root canal because your food is crap and your medical coverage is worse. Way to miss the point. Whether the item is a tesla or a can of beans is irrelevant. The point is that if previously you couldn't afford X, after getting a new job you could afford X, then you can't say that X is a cost/expense of getting the job.