7 ms·

A lot of the comments exhibit a common misunderstanding of the poor in America. Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is s

by runako 4y ago

A lot of the comments exhibit a common misunderstanding of the poor in America. Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is simply inadequate to cover basic living expenses without drawing on external resources. That's what people mean when they say these jobs don't pay a "living wage." How do those people live, then? Subsidies from elsewhere. As noted elsewhere, this can be in the form of living with family, cash payments from family, transfer payments from government, illegal side hustles, etc. A concrete example: when people say that Walmart is subsidized by taxpayers, what they mean is that Walmart can employ hundreds of thousands at below-subsistence wages only because the taxpayers will provide for their employees so that they can afford basic necessities. In the parlance, they do not provide a living wage, but their employees are still able to live due to government largesse. (I'm picking on Walmart because they are typically the employer of the largest cohort of government transfer payments in a state.)

PaulHoule 4y ago
So long as we have this policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit there are going to be headlines like "Walmart is subsidized". The EITC is one reason why the minimum wage wasn't raised for so long in the US. The idea is that there are some workers (say teenagers working at the supermarket) who don't have to earn a "living wage" to support a family (if they did get a living wage then prices would go up and the living wage would be more and the cycle would repeat...) so rather than setting wages for them to be high enough to support a family we don't have, the government subsidizes people who are raising families on low incomes directly.
- runako 4y ago
  The theory is clear, but after a few decades the results are also clear. > say teenagers working at the supermarket This flawed assumption is where the theory went wrong, IMHO. The EITC is designed around (say) 5 years of a young worker's life, but our labor market requires people in those roles through 5 decades of their lives. Low-wage employers have grown dependent on people of all ages to work for "teenager" wages through to retirement. > The EITC It's not just the EITC. Full-time low-wage employees don't really have any money, so they are subsidized by an array of federal and state programs. EBT/food stamps, Section 8/rental assistance, etc. Low-wage employees receive a lot of direct payments from taxpayers. (This is good!) In any case, it's worth discussing whether it is appropriate for companies like Walmart (profit per employee: $13k) to be allowed to pay their staff at such a rate that the taxpayer then has to pick up the tab for their employee's food stamps. Either case -- yes, it is totally accurate to say that employers are being subsidized by
  - strawhatguy 4y ago
    This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested.
    - runako 4y ago
      > This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. This is an important argument! The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well. By which I mean the outcome was broadly considered, across decades, not congruent with American values and preferences, which tilted toward electing representation to correct the situation. Which is not to say this wouldn't work elsewhere, just that America is not "elsewhere." > I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested. This would be an interesting experiment and IMHO is more intriguing that rehashing experiences that have already been repeatedly rebuffed by Americans.
      - strawhatguy 4y ago
        > The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well Actually no, it did work really well. The first century in the US saw leaps and bounds of economic growth, and for the common person most of all. Of course, generally things are better off today, after having benefited from all that early growth. Still, the pace of advancement has slowed, and most of that slowdown has come from people thinking they can redesign society.
- badcppdev 4y ago
  If their salaries went up 10% then they would save some of that money. Prices would rise 3%. And then when their salaries went up 3% the prices would go up 1%. And then their salaries would go up 1$ forcing the prices to go up 0.3% and then you'd reach a limit.... Well that's what I think. Do you have any proof backing up your statement that I'm wrong and "the cycle would repeat" or are you just repeating talking points from someone else?
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    You might be right about the limit. What I'll say though is that there is a real lack of thinking about "second order effects" of policy from people that are quick to subsidize things. It is interesting right now to see Britain stuck in a place where it seems to have gotten stuck several times since 1900 in which (1) the economy is screwed up, (2) prices are rising, (3) workers in critical industries are on strike, (4) the effects approximate a general strike, (5) strikes screw up the economy more... And politicians are screaming "can't you just take one for the society as a whole" and "if we give you a raise this year prices will go up and you'll ask for a raise next year..." In Britain it is worse than the US because they are so dependent on trade and have a non-dominant currency. It is not unusual at all for them to have violent swings in prices of fuel, food, and other imports, and when you consider the "wage-price" spiral inside the country you also have to consider the effect of Britons having more nominal money in their pocket to spend on imports, how that effects exchange rates, etc.
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  This "living wage leads to inflation" story is right wing fearmongering. Prices don't just magically rise. They rise either because demand exceeds supply, or because monopolists realize they can capture from consumers. There aren't really shortages of the type of food/goods people at the bottom of the economic totem pole (who will benefit from a living wage) purchase. If prices rise due to a living wage, outside of a few corner cases it'll be the result of big business profiteering, which is the real problem that needs to be addressed.
  - surement 4y ago
    > This "living wage leads to inflation" story is right wing fearmongering. No, it's a misunderstanding of supply and demand. When you raise the price of something, doesn't matter if it's labor or oranges, demand goes down. "Minimum" wage laws result in unemployment for lower-skilled workers, preventing them from getting valuable experience. Everyone who works decides what their minimum is; but somehow "minimum" wage proponents don't trust low-wage earner to decide for themselves so they prefer them to be unemployed instead because they don't understand that this is the result of those policies.
    - CuriouslyC 4y ago
      I would be totally happy to put an exception in the minimum wage law for apprenticeships and training periods for challenging jobs. Just as long as McDonalds isn't run by "apprentice" fry cooks and register jockeys. Low wage jobs with no career prospects are just preying on people for whom the alternative is homelessness.
      - surement 4y ago
        even jobs with no career prospects provide experience leading to useful skills, at the bare minimum how to behave with coworkers people have the option of taking those jobs or not so I'm not sure how this is "preying"
        CuriouslyC 4y ago
- iso1631 4y ago
  Walmart employer 1.7m people in the US and has a revenue of $437b in the US. If those 1.7m employees were all on $10 an hour for 2000 hours a year, that's 34b. If you doubled that wage to $20 an hour that would result in an extra $34b in costs at most. Revenue would have to go from $437b to $471b, a 7.8% increase.
- surement 4y ago
  > if they did get a living wage then prices would go up and the living wage would be more and the cycle would repeat... that's not how the world works if they were paying them a "living wage" then they wouldn't hire low-skilled teenagers at all; if you raise the price of salmon roe to the same by weight as caviar, few people will buy salmon roe instead of caviar and this is exactly what happens irl: "minimum" wage laws increase teenage unemployment, preventing them from getting experience, which no one (other than economists) factors into "wages" "minimum" wage laws drive salaries down from low to zero (i.e. unemployment) for low-skilled workers, preventing them from getting more skilled
theGnuMe 4y ago
Privatize the profits and socialize the expenses.
engineer_22 4y ago
-> How do those people live, then? Subsidies from elsewhere. As noted elsewhere, this can be in the form of living with family, cash payments from family, transfer payments from government, illegal side hustles, etc. Defer payments/maintenance to other areas of life. If they own a home maybe they decide to defer maintenance. If they can save a few bucks, maybe they avoid the Dr even though they're sick. They drive a less reliable car. Their food is lowest tier. Clothes are from thrift. Repairs are DIY, or help from a friend/family member.
- runako 4y ago
  This also evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a full-time low-wage employee. > If they own a home What home? We're talking about a cohort of people who work full-time jobs and still qualify for food stamps. Unless they inherited, they do not as a rule own homes. > They drive a less reliable car. Or cars. But yes, they skimp on everything, and then the taxpayer kicks in for their food, (frequently) shelter, healthcare, etc. I highly recommend Hand to Mouth by Linda Tirado for a first-hand look into being working poor in America.
  - engineer_22 4y ago
    > What home? We're talking about a cohort of people who work full-time jobs and still qualify for food stamps. Unless they inherited, they do not as a rule own homes. From the Article living wage in Onondaga County is $70,200. The Fed has MHI in that county at $65,000, which I know is enough to afford a home in Onondaga County. As a rule, the median owns a home. > But yes, they skimp on everything, and then the taxpayer kicks in for their food, (frequently) shelter, healthcare, etc. Social spending isn't going to the median family. > I highly recommend Hand to Mouth by Linda Tirado for a first-hand look into being working poor in America. I don't need to read a book about it. I lived it. My friends and family still live it. Your comment is very condescending, typical of the coastal liberal.
    - runako 4y ago
      > the median owns a home The median isn't the working poor. We're talking about two different groups of people. > Your comment is very condescending, typical of the coastal liberal. I offered a book I found informative to a stranger as something positive. I'm not a coastal liberal, but I do find your response unwarranted. I do genuinely hope the rest of your day goes better.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is simply inadequate to cover basic living expenses without drawing on external resources. Most poor people are children under 18. I guess technically, you can work at 16, so some of them probably dropped out and work full-time, but it's definitely not the norm. Most poor "adults" - are people >65 who aren't working full-time either. Sure, most poor "18-65" year olds in the US work - but a large amount of these people that are "poor" are poor simply because they have kids (i.e. you're poor with the same wage if you have 2 kids but not if you have 0 kids) or because they work part-time... because they have kids.
- bungeonsBaggins 4y ago
  Hi! I worked for a nonprofit poverty advocacy center in Chicago. This is totally wrong, but it's stated so confidently. Why do you say this? What's the source you got this opinion from? Do you even know? This is an opportunity for you to learn more about yourself and grow! For some reason it helps your ego/reinforces your worldview to believe (and repeat!) that "most poor people are children under 18 or seniors" which is easily disprovable. So you should think about why you want to believe that, and what about your worldview would need to change if you accepted that that's not true (because it absolutely isn't!).
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/10/poverty-rate-varies-by-age-groups.html#:~:text=The%20child%20poverty%20rate%20(for,lower%20than%20the%20national%20rate https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/10/poverty-rate-.... [2] https://econofact.org/employment-and-poverty https://econofact.org/employment-and-poverty I should've added that college students make up a large chunk of poverty as well, and the disabled (non-working)... Using conservative rates for child poverty, you get: * ~32% of the entire poverty population is children <18 * ~18% are disabled and don't work * ~16% is seniors * ~10% is college students * ~6.5% is single mothers * ~6% don't work (either looking for work or not) * ~10% is everyone else - including dual-parent HH, single father HH, disabled people that do work, etc... The idea that most poor people (as defined by the definition of poverty in the US) are single people working full time jobs is not possible. The poverty line is BELOW a full-time minimum wage job, and it includes money received from government transfers like SNAP, etc... Only ~29% of the poor work full-time jobs - because by definition it's quite difficult to work full-time and be "in poverty". If your definition of poverty is something else - then sure - maybe most people in that "poverty" are full-time workers.
Aunche 4y ago
>A concrete example: when people say that Walmart is subsidized by taxpayers, what they mean is that Walmart can employ hundreds of thousands at below-subsistence wages only because the taxpayers will provide for their employees so that they can afford basic necessities. This is a completely ridiculous assertion because if Walmart didn't employ these people, then taxpayers then they would be required to be subsidized by the taxpayer even more. Focusing on wages is missing the point. The problem isn't that people aren't being paid enough because America has the richest residents in the world, excluding tax-haven countries. The problem that housing and healthcare costs are too high, both of which are controlled by policymakers that refuse to understand how incentives work. Even if you could magically squeeze higher wages from Walmart profits without destroying the economy, most of these wages would go towards these government-protected rent seekers. See housing in the Bay Area as the most obvious example of this. It's also odd to single out Walmart, just because they happen to occupy a space that employs a lot of lower-income workers. 100% of Jane Street makes well above a living wage. That doesn't make Jane Street a more virtuous company than Walmart or any less responsible for people's welfare.
- grecy 4y ago
  > if Walmart didn't employ these people, then taxpayers then they would be required to be subsidized by the taxpayer even more Or Walmart could pay them a living wage directly, and just lower it's profits a little. That's how it works in every other developed country on the planet. Even Australia with it's $21.38 minimum wage and healthcare for all has only 3.5% unemployment [1] [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate
  - Aunche 4y ago
    >Even Australia with it's $21.38 minimum wage and healthcare for all has only 3.5% unemployment [1] I agree that the US can increase its minimum wage without significantly increasing unemployment, but it can't do so nearly as much as Australia. For one, Australia has a lower minimum wage for youth. More importantly, Australia has vast mineral resources that are in high demand, so that creates a higher demand for lower-income labor.
marcusverus 4y ago
> Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is simply inadequate to cover basic living expenses without drawing on external resources. You hear this a lot, but I haven't seen any data that support it. According to census data, among "householders" (presumable the head of a given household) in the bottom quintile, 68% do not work, 13% work part time, and only 18% work full time. 62% of households in the bottom quintile have zero workers in the home.[0] In both the bottom and second-lowest quintile, the mean number of earners per household is less than 1! [0] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-by-household-demographics-2015-update/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-...
- runako 4y ago
  I don't have recent figures handy, but I think 18% qualifies as "many" when you are talking about potentially tens of millions of affected individuals (including dependents). The argument against living wage isn't bootstrapping a strategic industry or national defense, it's so that e.g. Walmart can earn $13k in profit per employee instead of (say) $10k profit per employee. It's definitely a legitimate public policy discussion as to whether subsidizing businesses like these is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    "Many", sure. I was just clarifying that it's far "most". Walmart--like every other employer--pays the minimum required to attract workers. The welfare state exists, so of course Walmart and workers take this into account when determining an agreeable wage--why wouldn't they? This isn't nefarious behavior on Walmart's part--it's an unintended (if unsurprising) consequence of the welfare state. Blaming the market for responding to state intervention seems silly.
    - runako 4y ago
      Agree this is smart management by Walmart. But it makes sense for taxpayers to ask whether the operant regulations & safety net should be changed such that Walmart had to shoulder a larger portion of the burden for keeping their workers employed.
steve76 4y ago
[dead]
legitster 4y ago
> In the parlance, they do not provide a living wage, but their employees are still able to live due to government largesse. I really, really, really hate this framing. The whole point of these programs was to help people regardless of their employment status. The alternative is saying that only people without jobs should ever use a social service. No one in their right mind would say that a single-payer health plan would "subsidize corporations" by making employees cheaper. So it seems wrong to accuse SNAP or Title IX of doing the same.
- runako 4y ago
  This is a really solid point with which I agree! I think the only caveat is there is much debate about where to set the minimum wage, and it's not crystal clear what is the appropriate number. So for that debate I do think it is reasonable to use as a proxy "is the employee paid enough to not qualify for means-tested social assistance programs," because there is obviously a relationship in practice between the minimum wage and the amount ultimately spent on social assistance. This is only really true because the means-tested programs phase out as income increases, which would not be true of single-payer healthcare (so the argument doesn't make sense in that case).
  - legitster 4y ago
    I don't have a strong opinion on minimum wage, but it's pretty clear you can have equally good outcomes with multiple different approaches. There are some very progressive countries with no effective minimum wage (Finland being a notable example). So to provide an analysis that is mathematically only going to favor one approach seems a bit jaded to me.
prepend 4y ago
> How do those people live, then? Not alone. My experience is that most of “those people” live with spouses, families, and roommates. This isn’t necessarily preferable, but this is how most people survive. When I lived in Manhattan, it was super common for a married couple to split a studio. And most people I knew in their 20s would have 4-5 people splitting rent. And everyone chose this. Some left the city (like me) and some grew their careers and eventually bought or rented their own space. The good news is that people were mobile so no one was forced to live there.

by runako 4y ago

PaulHoule 4y ago

So long as we have this policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit there are going to be headlines like "Walmart is subsidized". The EITC is one reason why the minimum wage wasn't raised for so long in the US. The idea is that there are some workers (say teenagers working at the supermarket) who don't have to earn a "living wage" to support a family (if they did get a living wage then prices would go up and the living wage would be more and the cycle would repeat...) so rather than setting wages for them to be high enough to support a family we don't have, the government subsidizes people who are raising families on low incomes directly.

runako 4y ago
The theory is clear, but after a few decades the results are also clear. > say teenagers working at the supermarket This flawed assumption is where the theory went wrong, IMHO. The EITC is designed around (say) 5 years of a young worker's life, but our labor market requires people in those roles through 5 decades of their lives. Low-wage employers have grown dependent on people of all ages to work for "teenager" wages through to retirement. > The EITC It's not just the EITC. Full-time low-wage employees don't really have any money, so they are subsidized by an array of federal and state programs. EBT/food stamps, Section 8/rental assistance, etc. Low-wage employees receive a lot of direct payments from taxpayers. (This is good!) In any case, it's worth discussing whether it is appropriate for companies like Walmart (profit per employee: $13k) to be allowed to pay their staff at such a rate that the taxpayer then has to pick up the tab for their employee's food stamps. Either case -- yes, it is totally accurate to say that employers are being subsidized by
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested.
  - runako 4y ago
    > This is an argument to not have any of those benefits (nor the income tax as well). Then a stronger semblance of markets can take root, especially w.r.t pay. This is an important argument! The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well. By which I mean the outcome was broadly considered, across decades, not congruent with American values and preferences, which tilted toward electing representation to correct the situation. Which is not to say this wouldn't work elsewhere, just that America is not "elsewhere." > I'd be open to a UBI-type subsidy that is NOT means tested (everyone get it) to replace all the programs you've mentioned above, which are means tested. This would be an interesting experiment and IMHO is more intriguing that rehashing experiences that have already been repeatedly rebuffed by Americans.
    - strawhatguy 4y ago
      > The counterargument is that we Americans tried it that way, and to summarize: it did not work out very well Actually no, it did work really well. The first century in the US saw leaps and bounds of economic growth, and for the common person most of all. Of course, generally things are better off today, after having benefited from all that early growth. Still, the pace of advancement has slowed, and most of that slowdown has come from people thinking they can redesign society.
badcppdev 4y ago
If their salaries went up 10% then they would save some of that money. Prices would rise 3%. And then when their salaries went up 3% the prices would go up 1%. And then their salaries would go up 1$ forcing the prices to go up 0.3% and then you'd reach a limit.... Well that's what I think. Do you have any proof backing up your statement that I'm wrong and "the cycle would repeat" or are you just repeating talking points from someone else?
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  You might be right about the limit. What I'll say though is that there is a real lack of thinking about "second order effects" of policy from people that are quick to subsidize things. It is interesting right now to see Britain stuck in a place where it seems to have gotten stuck several times since 1900 in which (1) the economy is screwed up, (2) prices are rising, (3) workers in critical industries are on strike, (4) the effects approximate a general strike, (5) strikes screw up the economy more... And politicians are screaming "can't you just take one for the society as a whole" and "if we give you a raise this year prices will go up and you'll ask for a raise next year..." In Britain it is worse than the US because they are so dependent on trade and have a non-dominant currency. It is not unusual at all for them to have violent swings in prices of fuel, food, and other imports, and when you consider the "wage-price" spiral inside the country you also have to consider the effect of Britons having more nominal money in their pocket to spend on imports, how that effects exchange rates, etc.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
This "living wage leads to inflation" story is right wing fearmongering. Prices don't just magically rise. They rise either because demand exceeds supply, or because monopolists realize they can capture from consumers. There aren't really shortages of the type of food/goods people at the bottom of the economic totem pole (who will benefit from a living wage) purchase. If prices rise due to a living wage, outside of a few corner cases it'll be the result of big business profiteering, which is the real problem that needs to be addressed.
- surement 4y ago
  > This "living wage leads to inflation" story is right wing fearmongering. No, it's a misunderstanding of supply and demand. When you raise the price of something, doesn't matter if it's labor or oranges, demand goes down. "Minimum" wage laws result in unemployment for lower-skilled workers, preventing them from getting valuable experience. Everyone who works decides what their minimum is; but somehow "minimum" wage proponents don't trust low-wage earner to decide for themselves so they prefer them to be unemployed instead because they don't understand that this is the result of those policies.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    I would be totally happy to put an exception in the minimum wage law for apprenticeships and training periods for challenging jobs. Just as long as McDonalds isn't run by "apprentice" fry cooks and register jockeys. Low wage jobs with no career prospects are just preying on people for whom the alternative is homelessness.
    - surement 4y ago
      even jobs with no career prospects provide experience leading to useful skills, at the bare minimum how to behave with coworkers people have the option of taking those jobs or not so I'm not sure how this is "preying"
      - CuriouslyC 4y ago
iso1631 4y ago
Walmart employer 1.7m people in the US and has a revenue of $437b in the US. If those 1.7m employees were all on $10 an hour for 2000 hours a year, that's 34b. If you doubled that wage to $20 an hour that would result in an extra $34b in costs at most. Revenue would have to go from $437b to $471b, a 7.8% increase.
surement 4y ago
> if they did get a living wage then prices would go up and the living wage would be more and the cycle would repeat... that's not how the world works if they were paying them a "living wage" then they wouldn't hire low-skilled teenagers at all; if you raise the price of salmon roe to the same by weight as caviar, few people will buy salmon roe instead of caviar and this is exactly what happens irl: "minimum" wage laws increase teenage unemployment, preventing them from getting experience, which no one (other than economists) factors into "wages" "minimum" wage laws drive salaries down from low to zero (i.e. unemployment) for low-skilled workers, preventing them from getting more skilled

theGnuMe 4y ago

Privatize the profits and socialize the expenses.

engineer_22 4y ago

-> How do those people live, then? Subsidies from elsewhere. As noted elsewhere, this can be in the form of living with family, cash payments from family, transfer payments from government, illegal side hustles, etc. Defer payments/maintenance to other areas of life. If they own a home maybe they decide to defer maintenance. If they can save a few bucks, maybe they avoid the Dr even though they're sick. They drive a less reliable car. Their food is lowest tier. Clothes are from thrift. Repairs are DIY, or help from a friend/family member.

runako 4y ago
This also evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a full-time low-wage employee. > If they own a home What home? We're talking about a cohort of people who work full-time jobs and still qualify for food stamps. Unless they inherited, they do not as a rule own homes. > They drive a less reliable car. Or cars. But yes, they skimp on everything, and then the taxpayer kicks in for their food, (frequently) shelter, healthcare, etc. I highly recommend Hand to Mouth by Linda Tirado for a first-hand look into being working poor in America.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  > What home? We're talking about a cohort of people who work full-time jobs and still qualify for food stamps. Unless they inherited, they do not as a rule own homes. From the Article living wage in Onondaga County is $70,200. The Fed has MHI in that county at $65,000, which I know is enough to afford a home in Onondaga County. As a rule, the median owns a home. > But yes, they skimp on everything, and then the taxpayer kicks in for their food, (frequently) shelter, healthcare, etc. Social spending isn't going to the median family. > I highly recommend Hand to Mouth by Linda Tirado for a first-hand look into being working poor in America. I don't need to read a book about it. I lived it. My friends and family still live it. Your comment is very condescending, typical of the coastal liberal.
  - runako 4y ago
    > the median owns a home The median isn't the working poor. We're talking about two different groups of people. > Your comment is very condescending, typical of the coastal liberal. I offered a book I found informative to a stranger as something positive. I'm not a coastal liberal, but I do find your response unwarranted. I do genuinely hope the rest of your day goes better.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

> Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is simply inadequate to cover basic living expenses without drawing on external resources. Most poor people are children under 18. I guess technically, you can work at 16, so some of them probably dropped out and work full-time, but it's definitely not the norm. Most poor "adults" - are people >65 who aren't working full-time either. Sure, most poor "18-65" year olds in the US work - but a large amount of these people that are "poor" are poor simply because they have kids (i.e. you're poor with the same wage if you have 2 kids but not if you have 0 kids) or because they work part-time... because they have kids.

bungeonsBaggins 4y ago
Hi! I worked for a nonprofit poverty advocacy center in Chicago. This is totally wrong, but it's stated so confidently. Why do you say this? What's the source you got this opinion from? Do you even know? This is an opportunity for you to learn more about yourself and grow! For some reason it helps your ego/reinforces your worldview to believe (and repeat!) that "most poor people are children under 18 or seniors" which is easily disprovable. So you should think about why you want to believe that, and what about your worldview would need to change if you accepted that that's not true (because it absolutely isn't!).
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/10/poverty-rate-varies-by-age-groups.html#:~:text=The%20child%20poverty%20rate%20(for,lower%20than%20the%20national%20rate https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/10/poverty-rate-.... [2] https://econofact.org/employment-and-poverty https://econofact.org/employment-and-poverty I should've added that college students make up a large chunk of poverty as well, and the disabled (non-working)... Using conservative rates for child poverty, you get: * ~32% of the entire poverty population is children <18 * ~18% are disabled and don't work * ~16% is seniors * ~10% is college students * ~6.5% is single mothers * ~6% don't work (either looking for work or not) * ~10% is everyone else - including dual-parent HH, single father HH, disabled people that do work, etc... The idea that most poor people (as defined by the definition of poverty in the US) are single people working full time jobs is not possible. The poverty line is BELOW a full-time minimum wage job, and it includes money received from government transfers like SNAP, etc... Only ~29% of the poor work full-time jobs - because by definition it's quite difficult to work full-time and be "in poverty". If your definition of poverty is something else - then sure - maybe most people in that "poverty" are full-time workers.

Aunche 4y ago

>A concrete example: when people say that Walmart is subsidized by taxpayers, what they mean is that Walmart can employ hundreds of thousands at below-subsistence wages only because the taxpayers will provide for their employees so that they can afford basic necessities. This is a completely ridiculous assertion because if Walmart didn't employ these people, then taxpayers then they would be required to be subsidized by the taxpayer even more. Focusing on wages is missing the point. The problem isn't that people aren't being paid enough because America has the richest residents in the world, excluding tax-haven countries. The problem that housing and healthcare costs are too high, both of which are controlled by policymakers that refuse to understand how incentives work. Even if you could magically squeeze higher wages from Walmart profits without destroying the economy, most of these wages would go towards these government-protected rent seekers. See housing in the Bay Area as the most obvious example of this. It's also odd to single out Walmart, just because they happen to occupy a space that employs a lot of lower-income workers. 100% of Jane Street makes well above a living wage. That doesn't make Jane Street a more virtuous company than Walmart or any less responsible for people's welfare.

grecy 4y ago
> if Walmart didn't employ these people, then taxpayers then they would be required to be subsidized by the taxpayer even more Or Walmart could pay them a living wage directly, and just lower it's profits a little. That's how it works in every other developed country on the planet. Even Australia with it's $21.38 minimum wage and healthcare for all has only 3.5% unemployment [1] [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate
- Aunche 4y ago
  >Even Australia with it's $21.38 minimum wage and healthcare for all has only 3.5% unemployment [1] I agree that the US can increase its minimum wage without significantly increasing unemployment, but it can't do so nearly as much as Australia. For one, Australia has a lower minimum wage for youth. More importantly, Australia has vast mineral resources that are in high demand, so that creates a higher demand for lower-income labor.

marcusverus 4y ago

> Many (most?) "poor" people work full-time jobs, but the pay from those jobs is simply inadequate to cover basic living expenses without drawing on external resources. You hear this a lot, but I haven't seen any data that support it. According to census data, among "householders" (presumable the head of a given household) in the bottom quintile, 68% do not work, 13% work part time, and only 18% work full time. 62% of households in the bottom quintile have zero workers in the home.[0] In both the bottom and second-lowest quintile, the mean number of earners per household is less than 1! [0] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-by-household-demographics-2015-update/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-...

runako 4y ago
I don't have recent figures handy, but I think 18% qualifies as "many" when you are talking about potentially tens of millions of affected individuals (including dependents). The argument against living wage isn't bootstrapping a strategic industry or national defense, it's so that e.g. Walmart can earn $13k in profit per employee instead of (say) $10k profit per employee. It's definitely a legitimate public policy discussion as to whether subsidizing businesses like these is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  "Many", sure. I was just clarifying that it's far "most". Walmart--like every other employer--pays the minimum required to attract workers. The welfare state exists, so of course Walmart and workers take this into account when determining an agreeable wage--why wouldn't they? This isn't nefarious behavior on Walmart's part--it's an unintended (if unsurprising) consequence of the welfare state. Blaming the market for responding to state intervention seems silly.
  - runako 4y ago
    Agree this is smart management by Walmart. But it makes sense for taxpayers to ask whether the operant regulations & safety net should be changed such that Walmart had to shoulder a larger portion of the burden for keeping their workers employed.

steve76 4y ago

[dead]

legitster 4y ago

> In the parlance, they do not provide a living wage, but their employees are still able to live due to government largesse. I really, really, really hate this framing. The whole point of these programs was to help people regardless of their employment status. The alternative is saying that only people without jobs should ever use a social service. No one in their right mind would say that a single-payer health plan would "subsidize corporations" by making employees cheaper. So it seems wrong to accuse SNAP or Title IX of doing the same.

runako 4y ago
This is a really solid point with which I agree! I think the only caveat is there is much debate about where to set the minimum wage, and it's not crystal clear what is the appropriate number. So for that debate I do think it is reasonable to use as a proxy "is the employee paid enough to not qualify for means-tested social assistance programs," because there is obviously a relationship in practice between the minimum wage and the amount ultimately spent on social assistance. This is only really true because the means-tested programs phase out as income increases, which would not be true of single-payer healthcare (so the argument doesn't make sense in that case).
- legitster 4y ago
  I don't have a strong opinion on minimum wage, but it's pretty clear you can have equally good outcomes with multiple different approaches. There are some very progressive countries with no effective minimum wage (Finland being a notable example). So to provide an analysis that is mathematically only going to favor one approach seems a bit jaded to me.

prepend 4y ago

> How do those people live, then? Not alone. My experience is that most of “those people” live with spouses, families, and roommates. This isn’t necessarily preferable, but this is how most people survive. When I lived in Manhattan, it was super common for a married couple to split a studio. And most people I knew in their 20s would have 4-5 people splitting rent. And everyone chose this. Some left the city (like me) and some grew their careers and eventually bought or rented their own space. The good news is that people were mobile so no one was forced to live there.