5 ms·

Reducing the price of labor isn’t gonna bring that food insecurity rate down. And food being very cheap is definitely why there’s so much waste. There wasn’t,

Reducing the price of labor isn’t gonna bring that food insecurity rate down. And food being very cheap is definitely why there’s so much waste. There wasn’t, within living memory, and it’s because food cost a way bigger share of the median wage than it does today. Talk to some folks who grew up poor in the 40s and 50s about their cuisine, and they’ll tell you about what low-food-waste living looks like.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> Reducing the price of labor isn’t gonna bring that food insecurity rate down. The goal isn't to reduce the cost of labor. The goal is to unlock low-cost labor that is currently priced out. We only have ~60% workforce participation. The ultra-poor community could be served BY the ultra-poor community - and then a large percentage of them could go from ultra-poor to regular-poor, having a place to live and struggling to make ends meet instead of being homeless & hungry. But that's not possible. Because we decided if you're not worth $15 an hour - you're worth nothing.
- decremental 3y ago
  [dead]
- richiebful1 3y ago
  I highly doubt the minimum wage is the cause of these issues. In places like urban Pennsylvania, where the minimum wage is still 7.25 USD, there's hardly any jobs that start at $7.25. The real issue with labor participation is no one can survive on $7.25/hr, so it becomes more realistic to sit at home and collect disability. The government should be subsidizing labor at the low end -- maybe paying workers an additional $5/hr under a certain wage -- to incentivize work
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    You don't tend to have high amounts of ultra-poor people in low-cost-of-living areas (which also have lower minimum wages than the high-cost areas with the higher minimum wages). Montgomery, Al is known as a "poor" area - and yet there are only ~330 homeless people in a city of ~200k people (0.165%). In SF you have about ~8800 homeless people in a city of ~880k (1%). If you're looking at somewhere like Rural PA - you're already not going to be able to employ people at low wages - because you're going to need to pay them almost $4 per hour just to get to and from work.
    - hotnfresh 3y ago
      Have you… lived in those kind of places? One side of my family’s from not even that bad of one, and there are tons of the ultra-poor. They’re the ones living in a house with a blue tarp on part of the roof, three broken cars in the yard, overgrown weeds right up to the foundation, et c. The land’s owned by some family member (all three crappy acres are worth $2,000 total—the house is worth negative dollars—so it’s not like they’re giving up a fortune to let them stay there) or is an illegal rental. They often have one or two even-worse-off buddies living with them. Income and hand-me-downs (clothes, anppliances, old cars they’ll break and not be able to repair within a year which’ll join the front yard scrap pile) are from family and churches. Income, if any, is government assistance (lots of vets) and odd jobs. They have a bunch of health problems and are probably addicted to something. If they don’t have family to get them to the hospital 90 minutes away, they do without. They die decades younger than they might. These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. The cost of living’s low because nobody there can afford to pay more, and because they have no local public services to speak of. [edit] the reason, specifically, there aren’t more homeless those places isn’t because it’s better, but because 1) nobody moves in, so 100% of people have family ties of some kind, at least some background that gets them access to a hovel or something, and 2) if you’re actually homeless there, you get picked up and shipped somewhere they can actually serve homeless people (or just go to prison), or you die.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        > These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. And yet unemployment is lower than in places like SF, and homelessness is also lower, so is hunger. I think you're forgetting how shockingly poor the entire world is.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > Montgomery, Al is known as a "poor" area - and yet there are only ~330 homeless people in a city of ~200k people (0.165%). In SF you have about ~8800 homeless people in a city of ~880k (1%). I'd have to imagine that police in Alabama are probably a lot more aggressive in "running off" homeless people.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> Reducing the price of labor isn’t gonna bring that food insecurity rate down. The goal isn't to reduce the cost of labor. The goal is to unlock low-cost labor that is currently priced out. We only have ~60% workforce participation. The ultra-poor community could be served BY the ultra-poor community - and then a large percentage of them could go from ultra-poor to regular-poor, having a place to live and struggling to make ends meet instead of being homeless & hungry. But that's not possible. Because we decided if you're not worth $15 an hour - you're worth nothing.

decremental 3y ago
[dead]
richiebful1 3y ago
I highly doubt the minimum wage is the cause of these issues. In places like urban Pennsylvania, where the minimum wage is still 7.25 USD, there's hardly any jobs that start at $7.25. The real issue with labor participation is no one can survive on $7.25/hr, so it becomes more realistic to sit at home and collect disability. The government should be subsidizing labor at the low end -- maybe paying workers an additional $5/hr under a certain wage -- to incentivize work
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  You don't tend to have high amounts of ultra-poor people in low-cost-of-living areas (which also have lower minimum wages than the high-cost areas with the higher minimum wages). Montgomery, Al is known as a "poor" area - and yet there are only ~330 homeless people in a city of ~200k people (0.165%). In SF you have about ~8800 homeless people in a city of ~880k (1%). If you're looking at somewhere like Rural PA - you're already not going to be able to employ people at low wages - because you're going to need to pay them almost $4 per hour just to get to and from work.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    Have you… lived in those kind of places? One side of my family’s from not even that bad of one, and there are tons of the ultra-poor. They’re the ones living in a house with a blue tarp on part of the roof, three broken cars in the yard, overgrown weeds right up to the foundation, et c. The land’s owned by some family member (all three crappy acres are worth $2,000 total—the house is worth negative dollars—so it’s not like they’re giving up a fortune to let them stay there) or is an illegal rental. They often have one or two even-worse-off buddies living with them. Income and hand-me-downs (clothes, anppliances, old cars they’ll break and not be able to repair within a year which’ll join the front yard scrap pile) are from family and churches. Income, if any, is government assistance (lots of vets) and odd jobs. They have a bunch of health problems and are probably addicted to something. If they don’t have family to get them to the hospital 90 minutes away, they do without. They die decades younger than they might. These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. The cost of living’s low because nobody there can afford to pay more, and because they have no local public services to speak of. [edit] the reason, specifically, there aren’t more homeless those places isn’t because it’s better, but because 1) nobody moves in, so 100% of people have family ties of some kind, at least some background that gets them access to a hovel or something, and 2) if you’re actually homeless there, you get picked up and shipped somewhere they can actually serve homeless people (or just go to prison), or you die.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
      > These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. And yet unemployment is lower than in places like SF, and homelessness is also lower, so is hunger. I think you're forgetting how shockingly poor the entire world is.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > Montgomery, Al is known as a "poor" area - and yet there are only ~330 homeless people in a city of ~200k people (0.165%). In SF you have about ~8800 homeless people in a city of ~880k (1%). I'd have to imagine that police in Alabama are probably a lot more aggressive in "running off" homeless people.