3 ms·

> 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

> 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.