5 ms·

You can afford what you can afford. If that means you can't afford a 2 bedroom house? Then you can't. Maybe you should downsize, learn a new skill and do more t

You can afford what you can afford. If that means you can't afford a 2 bedroom house? Then you can't. Maybe you should downsize, learn a new skill and do more to become more than worth minimum wage. There's also 100 years of research on how to pick up skills that aren't minimum skill and minimum wage. Problems can be address... but so can skewed ideas of what you deserve and what reality shows you're going to get. I grew up poor. I started with low-pay, low-skill jobs. I lived on couches and didn't have "2 bedroom apartments" because even before I got my college education I understood that not everyone can afford to live like that. Know what I did? That college degree I mentioned... I got a skill in demand and became more than a burger flipper and dish washer. The disconnect between our opinions is the expectation that you deserve a good life in a minimum wage job. People have been lied too that life is fair and that they deserve a minimum standard of life. I grew up with the expectation that I got what I earned and if I earned minimum wage? I got a lot less than a nice apartment.

whataremyvalues 5y ago
The current status quo you are perpetuating can be described as crabs in a bucket. It may serve you well to learn about the values you are prioritizing. www.wamv.life is a tool that helps with self-awareness by measuring values, moods, and value utilization.
craftinator 5y ago
> Know what I did? That college degree I mentioned... I got a skill in demand and became more than a burger flipper and dish washer. You got lucky. Like really, statistically, you were incredibly lucky. Good genetics, lack of disabilities dire enough to stop you from working, no medical emergencies serious enough to put you in permanent debt, and obviously received some decently schooling on the government's dime as a child if you just "got a skill in demand" and a "college degree". Yes, the hard work helped to captalize on all of the good luck you had, but it didn't create the circumstances that allowed you to succeed. So if your argument is "why should these people who are less fortunate than me be allowed to live decently?", the response should be "you should be that person living in squalor, but you lucked out".
- wernercd 5y ago
  > lucky. Incredibly lucky. Yes... I was born in America. Then I stopped relying on being lucky and took my poor ass (I grew up with a single parent and little to nothing) and worked my ass off to better myself (using the opportunities afforded in the wonderful country I was lucky enough to be born in). > why should those less fortunate be allowed to live decently The problem is definition of "decent". Poor people in America make 10x more than the AVERAGE global salary and have opportunities that people around the world envy. "I can't afford a good apartment" in other countries is "I can't eat and my kids are dying". You say I'm lucky... I say you're entitled. Funny thing is we're both correct and that still doesn't make "affordable housing" something that's realistically possible for 100% of people in 100% of the US much less the world.
  - craftinator 5y ago
    > Then I stopped relying on being lucky Oh no, you still rely on being lucky. Especially if you went from being very poor to having a college degree, so many things completely outside of your control must have gone in your favor for that to happen. That is the definition of luck. > You say I'm lucky... I say you're entitled. Since you know nothing about me, I'm assuming you are lashing out here because I touched on a sensitive area for you. Maybe rocked your sense of being solely responsible for all of the good things that you've been fortunate to have? > Funny thing is we're both correct No. I really don't have any sense of entitlement. You, however, are incredibly lucky, you've really been in the top 1% for statistics on poverty. Remember to pay it forward.
    - wernercd 5y ago
      "you know nothing about me" You also know nothing about me, so that feeling is mutual. You don't know my story either there friend. I'm as lucky as any American who worked their asses off to be told by other entitled Americans (IE: You) that it wasn't hard work that got me to where I am. "Lashing out" telling you the truth in an uncomfortable manner isn't lashing out... it's telling the truth. It's only lashing out if I... "touched on a sensitive areas for you". That sword cuts both ways. I never said I controlled EVERYTHING... I already said I was lucky to be born American where even our poor people are so lucky they are in the top 1% of the world - past and present. "I really don't have any sense of entitlement" Funny how many Americans says that while preaching from a platform of entitlement.
kristopolous 5y ago
The disconnect is you have an opinion and I'm trying to inform you the effects of nationwide economic policy is a legitimate discipline of study. This isn't about personal gumption and rugged individualism or some self-help personal bootstrap story. It's an economic policy question Here's an example. Let's say there's a formula for success rate, here we'll define it as generating more revenue than cost for the state over the lifetime of an individual. A policy proposal, say your rugged individualism, has a given success rate, return on aggregate investment, confounding variables that can affect its outcome, etc. You can typify the classes of failures and bucket them into categories that can be characterized by cost, which is up for definition. It could include a loss of potential economic output for instance. That's what we're talking about here. It's not story time, it's math, data collection and stats time. The minimum wage question is "should it be legal to compensate a full time worker at a rate where their wages cannot cover some definition of sustination? And if so, how will the remaining slack be accounted for?" not whether someone can visualize their success and follow some 12 rules for life or whatever. It's not relevant Quantitative economics used to be big in the US, kinda made it a world power. If you read newspapers from the 1930s it becomes obvious fast. How it got replaced with policy based on quite literally narrative fiction is for another conversation. It wasn't a good move, folklore is a terrible substitute for science.
- oftenwrong 5y ago
  I've favourited this comment. Why do some accept mediocrity when it comes to the achievability of a comfortable standard of living? Perhaps it would help them to frame this in the language of a SaaS company, since I know so many HNers strive for excellence in that area: Our company is failing to deliver value to many of our customers; how can we do better?
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    I even have to push back on that. It's not about a policy position but instead a discipline. Pick some advocacy, let's go the other end, generous social services + adequate UBI. "people will just be lazy and not work" Alright sure, how many? Some industries more than others? Do we care as a society if those industries fold? And what about those people, are they idling or pursuing financially riskier dreams like say local journalism or being a religious cleric? How many? How confident are we about this? Are they in general doing a good job? Would we be ok with say more local journalists and less say fast food restaurants? Is that a good trade-off? Would this change land-use? Food availability? If we do a policy that will intentionally make these things fold, what's the possible exit strategies for things like the supplies and buildings? Is that what we want? Are there test cases, anywhere in the world that did similar things? What were their reports on it? This is the kind of discipline that was used to rebuild Japan and Europe after world war 2. It's not about a "planned" economy, but instead a "catastrophe avoiding one". If the answer was something like "apparently, historically, when some country does X, a large number of people join criminal gangs and murder people" then, if you don't want that outcome, you probably don't want to do X. China has also been doing this kind of interlocutor discipline since, that's debatable, certainly by 1990. People say they're no longer "communist". What they actually mean is the merit of a policy is no longer held up against the ideology of communism and then decided upon based on a purity test. That process is actually super popular in the US. An accusation of a policy not aligning with the dogmatism of a particular flavor of capitalism is enough to kill the policy. Everything is held up to an ideological purity test where it's marked based on adherence alone. It's actually exactly what the Soviets did with things like Lysenkoism that led to millions dying from essentially communism applied to seed planting, fertilization and harvesting. I know it sounds insane and that's because it is. Ever notice how economic policy debates seem a little crazy and detached from reality? Ever notice how policy is kinda DOA unless someone can spin a story and make it jive with a specific ideology and how they give exactly 0.000 weight to any historical analysis of what the policy does? It's a problem. It shouldn't matter but instead it's literally the only thing that does.
lm28469 5y ago
> There's also 100 years of research on how to pick up skills that aren't minimum skill and minimum wage. I have news for you: the world is run by min wage people, the entire system depends on having a large amount of people being paid as little as possible. This is the "it's easy: just stop being poor" level of argumentation...
- choko 5y ago
  About half a million workers earn minimum wage out of around 80 million workers. Your assertion is statistically incorrect.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    And how many are paid barely above the min hourly rate and not included in your stat ? 30%+ the US population should live in a single room flat and sleep on a sofa apparently: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Households_vs_Individuals_Income.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Households_vs...
    - choko 5y ago
      This is a great example of "moving the goalposts". I can see where this is going already and am not interested. Have a nice day.
helij 5y ago
You absolutely should have a good life with minimum wage. Every wage should be able to provide decent housing and healthcare. Everything else is bullshit and failure of society.
- wernercd 5y ago
  Define a good life... The average life GLOBALLY sets that the "minimum wage" life in the US is the top 10% globally. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-richest-10-percent-worldwide.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-b... > And the global median income is just $1,225 a year You can be worth $4/k total and still be worth more than 50% of the world. Your $15-25k/year income for minimum wages is still 10x the global median and your "I can't afford a nice apartment" life is still 100x better than most of those places. "every wage should be able" Why? Because you feel it should? Guess what? your feelings don't make land cheap, labor to build housing cheap or get rid of burdensome government bs that makes things 10x more expensive than the should be. Your entitled opinion doesn't make things affordable or change the fact that the people crying about how bad they have it in the US have it 100x better than previous generations and current generations around the world.
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    Good life is generally "having agency over your own social reproduction" and it's ultimately unrelated to the amount of money you make. It's a set of relationships, since property itself is a relationship, who has the power to delegate, who is obligated, how transfer of responsibility happens, these are the important aspects That's why it's called a "political economy" the two are ultimately inseparable. It's a question of autonomy, control, agency and liberty, not one of dollars in a bank. This goes back over 100 years. Look at the Hollywood star system. Big names having essentially contracts of grueling work and enslavement for years under the Lochner era, they could make $1 million a movie but all the cash could be seized if they broke the 10 year contract or whatever and leave the person destitute. Stars who broke contracts and had everything taken away famously had to pawn off academy awards to try to feed themselves. The people didn't really have meaningful freedom. That's why United Artists, SAG, DGA, AFTRA and WGA started. If you work on a big show, it's the Guild that gives you dental and health care, not the studio. They give it to you in the dry times too. The money wasn't the problem, it was the enslavement. The politics and relationships is the actual thing, the money is just a temporary consequence

whataremyvalues 5y ago

The current status quo you are perpetuating can be described as crabs in a bucket. It may serve you well to learn about the values you are prioritizing. www.wamv.life is a tool that helps with self-awareness by measuring values, moods, and value utilization.

craftinator 5y ago

> Know what I did? That college degree I mentioned... I got a skill in demand and became more than a burger flipper and dish washer. You got lucky. Like really, statistically, you were incredibly lucky. Good genetics, lack of disabilities dire enough to stop you from working, no medical emergencies serious enough to put you in permanent debt, and obviously received some decently schooling on the government's dime as a child if you just "got a skill in demand" and a "college degree". Yes, the hard work helped to captalize on all of the good luck you had, but it didn't create the circumstances that allowed you to succeed. So if your argument is "why should these people who are less fortunate than me be allowed to live decently?", the response should be "you should be that person living in squalor, but you lucked out".

wernercd 5y ago
> lucky. Incredibly lucky. Yes... I was born in America. Then I stopped relying on being lucky and took my poor ass (I grew up with a single parent and little to nothing) and worked my ass off to better myself (using the opportunities afforded in the wonderful country I was lucky enough to be born in). > why should those less fortunate be allowed to live decently The problem is definition of "decent". Poor people in America make 10x more than the AVERAGE global salary and have opportunities that people around the world envy. "I can't afford a good apartment" in other countries is "I can't eat and my kids are dying". You say I'm lucky... I say you're entitled. Funny thing is we're both correct and that still doesn't make "affordable housing" something that's realistically possible for 100% of people in 100% of the US much less the world.
- craftinator 5y ago
  > Then I stopped relying on being lucky Oh no, you still rely on being lucky. Especially if you went from being very poor to having a college degree, so many things completely outside of your control must have gone in your favor for that to happen. That is the definition of luck. > You say I'm lucky... I say you're entitled. Since you know nothing about me, I'm assuming you are lashing out here because I touched on a sensitive area for you. Maybe rocked your sense of being solely responsible for all of the good things that you've been fortunate to have? > Funny thing is we're both correct No. I really don't have any sense of entitlement. You, however, are incredibly lucky, you've really been in the top 1% for statistics on poverty. Remember to pay it forward.
  - wernercd 5y ago
    "you know nothing about me" You also know nothing about me, so that feeling is mutual. You don't know my story either there friend. I'm as lucky as any American who worked their asses off to be told by other entitled Americans (IE: You) that it wasn't hard work that got me to where I am. "Lashing out" telling you the truth in an uncomfortable manner isn't lashing out... it's telling the truth. It's only lashing out if I... "touched on a sensitive areas for you". That sword cuts both ways. I never said I controlled EVERYTHING... I already said I was lucky to be born American where even our poor people are so lucky they are in the top 1% of the world - past and present. "I really don't have any sense of entitlement" Funny how many Americans says that while preaching from a platform of entitlement.

kristopolous 5y ago

The disconnect is you have an opinion and I'm trying to inform you the effects of nationwide economic policy is a legitimate discipline of study. This isn't about personal gumption and rugged individualism or some self-help personal bootstrap story. It's an economic policy question Here's an example. Let's say there's a formula for success rate, here we'll define it as generating more revenue than cost for the state over the lifetime of an individual. A policy proposal, say your rugged individualism, has a given success rate, return on aggregate investment, confounding variables that can affect its outcome, etc. You can typify the classes of failures and bucket them into categories that can be characterized by cost, which is up for definition. It could include a loss of potential economic output for instance. That's what we're talking about here. It's not story time, it's math, data collection and stats time. The minimum wage question is "should it be legal to compensate a full time worker at a rate where their wages cannot cover some definition of sustination? And if so, how will the remaining slack be accounted for?" not whether someone can visualize their success and follow some 12 rules for life or whatever. It's not relevant Quantitative economics used to be big in the US, kinda made it a world power. If you read newspapers from the 1930s it becomes obvious fast. How it got replaced with policy based on quite literally narrative fiction is for another conversation. It wasn't a good move, folklore is a terrible substitute for science.

oftenwrong 5y ago
I've favourited this comment. Why do some accept mediocrity when it comes to the achievability of a comfortable standard of living? Perhaps it would help them to frame this in the language of a SaaS company, since I know so many HNers strive for excellence in that area: Our company is failing to deliver value to many of our customers; how can we do better?
- kristopolous 5y ago
  I even have to push back on that. It's not about a policy position but instead a discipline. Pick some advocacy, let's go the other end, generous social services + adequate UBI. "people will just be lazy and not work" Alright sure, how many? Some industries more than others? Do we care as a society if those industries fold? And what about those people, are they idling or pursuing financially riskier dreams like say local journalism or being a religious cleric? How many? How confident are we about this? Are they in general doing a good job? Would we be ok with say more local journalists and less say fast food restaurants? Is that a good trade-off? Would this change land-use? Food availability? If we do a policy that will intentionally make these things fold, what's the possible exit strategies for things like the supplies and buildings? Is that what we want? Are there test cases, anywhere in the world that did similar things? What were their reports on it? This is the kind of discipline that was used to rebuild Japan and Europe after world war 2. It's not about a "planned" economy, but instead a "catastrophe avoiding one". If the answer was something like "apparently, historically, when some country does X, a large number of people join criminal gangs and murder people" then, if you don't want that outcome, you probably don't want to do X. China has also been doing this kind of interlocutor discipline since, that's debatable, certainly by 1990. People say they're no longer "communist". What they actually mean is the merit of a policy is no longer held up against the ideology of communism and then decided upon based on a purity test. That process is actually super popular in the US. An accusation of a policy not aligning with the dogmatism of a particular flavor of capitalism is enough to kill the policy. Everything is held up to an ideological purity test where it's marked based on adherence alone. It's actually exactly what the Soviets did with things like Lysenkoism that led to millions dying from essentially communism applied to seed planting, fertilization and harvesting. I know it sounds insane and that's because it is. Ever notice how economic policy debates seem a little crazy and detached from reality? Ever notice how policy is kinda DOA unless someone can spin a story and make it jive with a specific ideology and how they give exactly 0.000 weight to any historical analysis of what the policy does? It's a problem. It shouldn't matter but instead it's literally the only thing that does.

lm28469 5y ago

> There's also 100 years of research on how to pick up skills that aren't minimum skill and minimum wage. I have news for you: the world is run by min wage people, the entire system depends on having a large amount of people being paid as little as possible. This is the "it's easy: just stop being poor" level of argumentation...

choko 5y ago
About half a million workers earn minimum wage out of around 80 million workers. Your assertion is statistically incorrect.
- lm28469 5y ago
  And how many are paid barely above the min hourly rate and not included in your stat ? 30%+ the US population should live in a single room flat and sleep on a sofa apparently: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Households_vs_Individuals_Income.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Households_vs...
  - choko 5y ago
    This is a great example of "moving the goalposts". I can see where this is going already and am not interested. Have a nice day.

helij 5y ago

You absolutely should have a good life with minimum wage. Every wage should be able to provide decent housing and healthcare. Everything else is bullshit and failure of society.

wernercd 5y ago
Define a good life... The average life GLOBALLY sets that the "minimum wage" life in the US is the top 10% globally. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-richest-10-percent-worldwide.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-b... > And the global median income is just $1,225 a year You can be worth $4/k total and still be worth more than 50% of the world. Your $15-25k/year income for minimum wages is still 10x the global median and your "I can't afford a nice apartment" life is still 100x better than most of those places. "every wage should be able" Why? Because you feel it should? Guess what? your feelings don't make land cheap, labor to build housing cheap or get rid of burdensome government bs that makes things 10x more expensive than the should be. Your entitled opinion doesn't make things affordable or change the fact that the people crying about how bad they have it in the US have it 100x better than previous generations and current generations around the world.
- kristopolous 5y ago
  Good life is generally "having agency over your own social reproduction" and it's ultimately unrelated to the amount of money you make. It's a set of relationships, since property itself is a relationship, who has the power to delegate, who is obligated, how transfer of responsibility happens, these are the important aspects That's why it's called a "political economy" the two are ultimately inseparable. It's a question of autonomy, control, agency and liberty, not one of dollars in a bank. This goes back over 100 years. Look at the Hollywood star system. Big names having essentially contracts of grueling work and enslavement for years under the Lochner era, they could make $1 million a movie but all the cash could be seized if they broke the 10 year contract or whatever and leave the person destitute. Stars who broke contracts and had everything taken away famously had to pawn off academy awards to try to feed themselves. The people didn't really have meaningful freedom. That's why United Artists, SAG, DGA, AFTRA and WGA started. If you work on a big show, it's the Guild that gives you dental and health care, not the studio. They give it to you in the dry times too. The money wasn't the problem, it was the enslavement. The politics and relationships is the actual thing, the money is just a temporary consequence