17 ms·

> 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 g

> 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.

gruez 6y ago
>Well the world doesn't work like your armchair accounting. ah yes, just slap "armchair" in front of something to invalidate someone's position. >Taking that job means 4 hours less time each day looking for a better job because you're busy with this part time one >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? The money you "earn" searching for a job is highly variable, and I don't see any attempts at quantifying it. If you were recently employed for $4000/month, your time might very well be spent looking for a job rather than taking the next min. wage job, but if you were unemployed for 6+ months and your previous job only barely paid better than minimum wage, the ROI is probably not there. >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. Aren't part time jobs closer to "8 hours a shift but you come a few times a week" rather than "4 hours a shift but you come in 5 days a week"?. >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. Thank you, that's the type of numbers I was looking for in the original comment. >And when you do reach homelessness, is that $1000/month job going to continue employing you? Would you rather be on the streets in 10 months or 5 months? The choice seems clear.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > Aren't part time jobs closer to "8 hours a shift but you come a few times a week" rather than "4 hours a shift but you come in 5 days a week"?. Maybe. "A few times a week" can mean "I need you to come in tomorrow and I don't care if that conflicts with your second job." It becomes a risk. > Would you rather be on the streets in 10 months or 5 months? The choice seems clear. The problem's been going on for months. Homelessness is significantly increased over the past year. The choice made seems clear.
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    To me it looks like you two are talking past each other. In fact, I think you're both right. gruez point can be summarized as "if you're having a minimum wage job, your loss at the end of the month is smaller compared to having no income at all" [0], which is a possible interpretation of the comment that sparked this thread [1]. This is also the reason he does not account for food, while you do. Your (inetknght's) point is that "with a minimum wage job, you'll make a loss at the end of the month". As far as I read it, gruez actually doesn't try to make the point that a minimum wage job is sustainable, so there's no contradiction. [0] Compared to, for example, driving for Uber, where at the end of the month the cost for car+fuel+maintenance might cost you more than you earned, increasing your net loss. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26995335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26995335 This line in particular: > 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.

gruez 6y ago

>Well the world doesn't work like your armchair accounting. ah yes, just slap "armchair" in front of something to invalidate someone's position. >Taking that job means 4 hours less time each day looking for a better job because you're busy with this part time one >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? The money you "earn" searching for a job is highly variable, and I don't see any attempts at quantifying it. If you were recently employed for $4000/month, your time might very well be spent looking for a job rather than taking the next min. wage job, but if you were unemployed for 6+ months and your previous job only barely paid better than minimum wage, the ROI is probably not there. >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. Aren't part time jobs closer to "8 hours a shift but you come a few times a week" rather than "4 hours a shift but you come in 5 days a week"?. >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. Thank you, that's the type of numbers I was looking for in the original comment. >And when you do reach homelessness, is that $1000/month job going to continue employing you? Would you rather be on the streets in 10 months or 5 months? The choice seems clear.

inetknght 6y ago
> Aren't part time jobs closer to "8 hours a shift but you come a few times a week" rather than "4 hours a shift but you come in 5 days a week"?. Maybe. "A few times a week" can mean "I need you to come in tomorrow and I don't care if that conflicts with your second job." It becomes a risk. > Would you rather be on the streets in 10 months or 5 months? The choice seems clear. The problem's been going on for months. Homelessness is significantly increased over the past year. The choice made seems clear.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  To me it looks like you two are talking past each other. In fact, I think you're both right. gruez point can be summarized as "if you're having a minimum wage job, your loss at the end of the month is smaller compared to having no income at all" [0], which is a possible interpretation of the comment that sparked this thread [1]. This is also the reason he does not account for food, while you do. Your (inetknght's) point is that "with a minimum wage job, you'll make a loss at the end of the month". As far as I read it, gruez actually doesn't try to make the point that a minimum wage job is sustainable, so there's no contradiction. [0] Compared to, for example, driving for Uber, where at the end of the month the cost for car+fuel+maintenance might cost you more than you earned, increasing your net loss. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26995335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26995335 This line in particular: > 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.