5 ms·

> These are all sunk costs. You need them regardless of whether you have a job or not They're not sunk costs if you literally don't have money to pay for them.

> These are all sunk costs. You need them regardless of whether you have a job or not They're not sunk costs if you literally don't have money to pay for them. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Your argument wasn't in good faith. You're saying that minimum wage is a livable wage which is a demonstrably false statement. Then you're also claiming that the cost of living is a sunk cost.

gruez 6y ago
>They're not sunk costs if you literally don't have money to pay for them. Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. >You're saying that minimum wage is a livable wage which is a demonstrably false statement I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. > I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement. > $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. That makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. >> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement. >> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day* 1. I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment. 2. you seem to be fixated on "expenses" meaning living expenses (eg. rent, food, clothing, etc.), whereas I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport). This was pointed out several comments ago.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day* > I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment. The comment you replied to stated: > There are a lot of jobs where your net pay is below zero, long term, when you factor in the external costs associated with working, such as needing transportation. Transportation is just a single one of those costs. Nobody in their right mind is going to get a job that they recognize won't pay for their expenses and many people consider more expenses than just transportation. > I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport). That wasn't clear and is no doubt where our discussion went astray
      - gruez 6y ago
        >many people consider more expenses than just transportation. You (and other people) seem to think that food, housing, and healthcare is an expense in getting a job, but that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. This is trivially proven with a thought experiment: let's say you were unemployed and had $2000/month in "required" expenses, and a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"? Of course not, even though you're still losing money from an overall cashflow perspective, taking the job still provides you a +$1000 improvement to your financial situation[2]. [1] although I suppose you would need less calories if you didn't work, but I think that's safe to ignore [2] for simplicity we can ignore government subsidies that gets cut off when you exceed a certain amount of income, or unemployment.
        inetknght 6y ago
        > that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view Well the world doesn't work like your armchair accounting. > a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"? $1000/month is _less_ than that minimum wage. So I'll assume it's indeed a part time job. Taking that job means 4 hours less time each day looking for a better job because you're busy with this part time one. Not only 4 hours less for work, but another 1 or 2 hours each day because now you're driving to and from that job. So 6 hours less each day. That's an expense. Now that you're working it also means being less eligible for any government assistance. $1000/month to work 4 hours/day while taking $800 less government assistance comes out to... a net of $200/month. For 4 hours/day of work and an additional 2 hours/day for transportation. If you look at the raw money, you're making more money. Homelessness is on the horizon and inching ever closer even if it's approaching slower. Are those 6 hours to you really worth your time when you could have spent those 6 hours trying to find an even better job? And when you do reach homelessness, is that $1000/month job going to continue employing you? I think that's the dilemma that the commenter at the start of this thread posits. Jobs are "available" but they're not sustainable. And people are turning down $18/hr stressful part-time jobs because they can't afford them.
Sebb767 6y ago
I think a better phrasing of his argument would be "if you take that job, the additional costs will not outweigh the income you get from that job". Put in another way, your net surplus after a month will be more with the job than without, irrespective of whether it is actually positive.

gruez 6y ago

>They're not sunk costs if you literally don't have money to pay for them. Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. >You're saying that minimum wage is a livable wage which is a demonstrably false statement I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.

inetknght 6y ago
> Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. > I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement. > $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*
- gruez 6y ago
  >Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job. That makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. >> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement. >> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day* 1. I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment. 2. you seem to be fixated on "expenses" meaning living expenses (eg. rent, food, clothing, etc.), whereas I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport). This was pointed out several comments ago.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day* > I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment. The comment you replied to stated: > There are a lot of jobs where your net pay is below zero, long term, when you factor in the external costs associated with working, such as needing transportation. Transportation is just a single one of those costs. Nobody in their right mind is going to get a job that they recognize won't pay for their expenses and many people consider more expenses than just transportation. > I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport). That wasn't clear and is no doubt where our discussion went astray
    - gruez 6y ago
      >many people consider more expenses than just transportation. You (and other people) seem to think that food, housing, and healthcare is an expense in getting a job, but that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. This is trivially proven with a thought experiment: let's say you were unemployed and had $2000/month in "required" expenses, and a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"? Of course not, even though you're still losing money from an overall cashflow perspective, taking the job still provides you a +$1000 improvement to your financial situation[2]. [1] although I suppose you would need less calories if you didn't work, but I think that's safe to ignore [2] for simplicity we can ignore government subsidies that gets cut off when you exceed a certain amount of income, or unemployment.
      - inetknght 6y ago
        > that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view Well the world doesn't work like your armchair accounting. > a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"? $1000/month is _less_ than that minimum wage. So I'll assume it's indeed a part time job. Taking that job means 4 hours less time each day looking for a better job because you're busy with this part time one. Not only 4 hours less for work, but another 1 or 2 hours each day because now you're driving to and from that job. So 6 hours less each day. That's an expense. Now that you're working it also means being less eligible for any government assistance. $1000/month to work 4 hours/day while taking $800 less government assistance comes out to... a net of $200/month. For 4 hours/day of work and an additional 2 hours/day for transportation. If you look at the raw money, you're making more money. Homelessness is on the horizon and inching ever closer even if it's approaching slower. Are those 6 hours to you really worth your time when you could have spent those 6 hours trying to find an even better job? And when you do reach homelessness, is that $1000/month job going to continue employing you? I think that's the dilemma that the commenter at the start of this thread posits. Jobs are "available" but they're not sustainable. And people are turning down $18/hr stressful part-time jobs because they can't afford them.

Sebb767 6y ago

I think a better phrasing of his argument would be "if you take that job, the additional costs will not outweigh the income you get from that job". Put in another way, your net surplus after a month will be more with the job than without, irrespective of whether it is actually positive.