2 ms·

> For all the talk about minimum wage jobs, only around 1% of jobs actually pay federal minimum wage. I see this stat a lot and it leaves me wondering how many

> For all the talk about minimum wage jobs, only around 1% of jobs actually pay federal minimum wage. I see this stat a lot and it leaves me wondering how many people are within, say, 50 cents or 5%[0] of minimum wage. The percent of workers earning minimum wage doesn't seem that useful (and I guess neither would the figures returned for my request). In any case I'd find hours required to live alone within ~30 minutes of work a more compelling statistic. It adjusts for CoL and represents a reasonable lifestyle to shoot for. 0: not suggesting these are equivalent figures

claudiulodro 4y ago
Also note that state/city minimum wage is often higher than federal minimum wage, so using only federal minimum wage stats is not a full picture. e.g. Washington's minimum wage is ~$14.50/hr, so nobody in that whole state is making federal minimum wage, but I doubt anybody is living well on "double the federal minimum wage" in most of the state.
notacoward 4y ago
It's not just the wage that matters but the consistency of the wage, and the benefits that go with it (or more often don't at that level), and the expenses that go with it. Consider two examples. * Person A is making minimum wage, but with good benefits, consistent hours, and a reasonable cost to live within walking distance of the job. * Person B is making minimum wage plus a buck per hour, but is technically not a full-time employee so no benefits at all. Shifts are often changed with little notice, sometimes to hours that are not very transit-friendly, and living within walking distance is utterly off the table for anyone short of a rich techie. Who's really better off? It's easy for full-time internet commentators to look at simplistic stats and draw simplistic (self serving) conclusions, but your metric is much better and closer to the ones used by people who actually study issues such as poverty.

claudiulodro 4y ago

Also note that state/city minimum wage is often higher than federal minimum wage, so using only federal minimum wage stats is not a full picture. e.g. Washington's minimum wage is ~$14.50/hr, so nobody in that whole state is making federal minimum wage, but I doubt anybody is living well on "double the federal minimum wage" in most of the state.

notacoward 4y ago

It's not just the wage that matters but the consistency of the wage, and the benefits that go with it (or more often don't at that level), and the expenses that go with it. Consider two examples. * Person A is making minimum wage, but with good benefits, consistent hours, and a reasonable cost to live within walking distance of the job. * Person B is making minimum wage plus a buck per hour, but is technically not a full-time employee so no benefits at all. Shifts are often changed with little notice, sometimes to hours that are not very transit-friendly, and living within walking distance is utterly off the table for anyone short of a rich techie. Who's really better off? It's easy for full-time internet commentators to look at simplistic stats and draw simplistic (self serving) conclusions, but your metric is much better and closer to the ones used by people who actually study issues such as poverty.