7 ms·
Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?
by anotherhue 2y ago
Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?
- missedthecue 2y agoI don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent. It's really just not possible. McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
- praccu 2y agoYou're very confused. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-month.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-mo...
- missedthecue 2y agoI'm not confused. It is not possible to have no dependents and be below the poverty line working 40 hours
- michaelt 2y agoIn my country, the easiest way to work 40 hours and still live in poverty is to move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment.
- digging 2y ago> move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment I'm not sure which way you feel about this, but I'll emphasize that everyone else in the city is completely dependent on people making this life choice (or a related one, where they live outside the city in a stifling suburb, pay for it with years of their life spent commuting, and simultaneously lower everyone's health and quality of life by driving a car).
- AdmiralAsshat 2y agohttps://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-walmart-mcdonalds-food-stamps-medicaid-minimum-wage-2020-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-walmart-mcdon... > Around 70% of people on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps and Medicaid work full-time, the watchdog found, and the majority of these worked for larger companies with 100 or more staff. So no, you can be gainfully employed in the US and still be on food stamps.
- TeaBrain 2y agoThat article is several years old and out of date. The poster you replied to would have been referring to current wages. Low income wages have made the largest percentage gains of any bracket since 2020.
- digging 2y agoI don't think anything you're saying supports the argument "I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent." So what's the point?
- TeaBrain 2y agoIt is true that the parent comment was not nuanced and very likely not true. I think it's also true that linking an article from 2020 is a possibly misleading response, since low-income wages have made a sizable jump since then.
- vel0city 2y agoPedantic point but you can be above the federal poverty level while still qualifying for Medicaid/SNAP. The Federal Povery Level for 2024 is $15,060. Assuming 1,720 hours a year for full-time employment, that's just under $8.76/hr. The federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr. So, the ultimate takeaway is in most states in the US working full time employment at the minimum wage of the state you will be below the FPL. One important thing to think about though is what percentage of low wage full-time jobs are actually still at the federal minimum wage?
- RIMR 2y agoI am curious about how you think a $290/week (minimum wage) budget works. Can you give me a breakdown of how a family of three can survive off of this? I figure if you can't see how anyone in America could be below water on a minimum wage salary, you must have a good idea of how to survive on a shoestring budget. Here, I'll make it simple. At approximately $1,260/month, how would much would you allocate to each category? Rent/Mortgage: Groceries: Transportation: Utilities: Healthcare: Personal / Misc: Entertainment: Debt repayment: Savings:
- missedthecue 2y agoWho pays $7.25? People quote that antiquated law as if it's a mandated wage. Fast food pays $15-20
- red-iron-pine 2y agoFive states have not adopted a state minimum wage: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have a minimum wage below $7.25 per hour. In all seven of these states, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour applies. Most other states have higher minimums, but those in most cases have not kept up with inflation. But in virtually all states you're broke af working for minimum.
- missedthecue 2y agoYou can look here at McDonalds jobs in small towns across Louisiana (randomly taken from your list). Avoiding cities because pay is higher there. Even in places like Pineville LA (pop 14k), they are starting fry cooks at double the federal minimum. https://www.indeed.com/q-mcdonalds-application-l-louisiana-jobs.html https://www.indeed.com/q-mcdonalds-application-l-louisiana-j...
- jononor 2y agoA single parent of three kids is considered a household size of 4, with a poverty line at 30k. That is basically the median full time salary in several professions in the retail and food industry.
- missedthecue 2y agoRight. Exactly my point. You've got to have several dependents as a single parent to go back below the poverty line. With one or no dependents, it's virtually impossible.
- jononor 2y agoYour original claim was that it requires an absurd amount of dependents. Having 2 dependents is rather common, and 3 not unheard of either. There are 10 million single parent households in the US, and 36% of them are in poverty. I am pretty sure that at least 1/3 of these parents work full time. So the number of single parent households at poverty line where parent works full time is probably 1 million or more.
- michaelmrose 2y agoI think you are speaking of the federal poverty line and they are talking about the ordinary definition of poverty. Nobody making the actual federal poverty line is surviving without help most places. Plenty of people are living in poverty whilest working full time.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago> McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line where the hell in America is that true? "well above" -- definitely not.
- themaninthedark 2y agoFederal minimum wage : $7.25 per hour 40h work week: $290 per week 52 weeks per year: $15,080.00 Federal Poverty level for 2024(family of 1): $15,060 https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/ https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fp... McDonalds average pay(Crew Member): $13.03 per hour https://www.indeed.com/cmp/McDonald's/salaries/Crew-Member https://www.indeed.com/cmp/McDonald's/salaries/Crew-Member 40 hour work week: $521.2 per week 52 weeks per year: $27.102.40 Average McDonalds pay for crew member puts you above Federal Poverty Level for a family of 3 ($25,820). If you take the family of 1 numbers, you are $12,042.4 above poverty. Almost double. I think that qualifies for well above. I also don't think it is good living but take it up with the federal government if you want to talk about where the Poverty Line and Inflation numbers come from, since they are the ones who like to screw with it to make themselves look good. Edit: I missed the part about requiring an absurd number of dependents, that isn't true. With one dependent, numbers don't look that bad but having 2(family of 3) you are basically living hand to mouth with no savings.
- silverquiet 2y agoSpotted the person who's never been a retail/fast food wage slave. You don't get 40 hours. At best you'll get 34 or whatever makes it so you aren't classified as full time. And that's a good week. If corporate is trying to save hours, you might get 8 or 10 that week. You'll need a second job, obviously, but given that there's no set schedule, you'll spend even more time trying to coordinate the two.
- themaninthedark 2y agoI have, worked as a cashier for a couple years. I know they never let you get to 40 hours, if you do then they have to start offering benefits. However, that wasn't part of the exercise. Grandparent stated that: > McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line I decided to run the numbers rather than go with gut feeling of no way. Figured I would share since I did the work. Grandparent was only haft right since they also state you would need a crazy amount of dependents to put you at Federal Poverty Level. If you had 2 dependents, you are above but living hand to mouth and one accident away from povert.
- trosi 2y agoA simpler solution to #2 would be to raise minimum wages.
- jondwillis 2y agoI guess? Corporations now throw hissy-fits in response to this and pass on the costs as loudly as possible to the consumer-voters.
- throwadobe 2y agoCue inflation. A better solution is to tax capital gains and corporate income at a rate that is closer to personal income taxes so that everyone pays their fair share.
- bearjaws 2y ago> Doesn't raise minimum wage > Still have massive inflation
- throwadobe 2y agoThat's a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
- wegfawefgawefg 2y agoI think the US has enough tax money it just needs to use it more efficiently. If you look at the government revenue per capita of the US it isn't that far off from Germany or Japan. Construction in Japan certainly has a higher price floor than in the US so there is no excuse there, and the various government offices in Japan operate quickly and efficiently despite offering much lower pay and worse hours, in a much stricter work environment. Basically, I think its a culture problem. You could give the US 10 trillion a year in Taxes rather than 3 but the dmv is still going to have a line, take 3 hours to get through and have a rude morbidly obese woman behind the counter.
- 2y ago
- rnewme 2y agoI would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.
- Sayrus 2y agoThere is also the in-between where these benefits allow you to quit and then look for another job. Something that can be hard to do if you are working long hours as you'd need to take days off that may or may not be approved depending on the company you are working for.
- rnewme 2y agoExactly, I think that situation should be better handled and would make the playfield much more level.
- anonzzzies 2y agoPeople who sit at home doing nothing tend to get very depressed and ‘self medicate’ (drink, smoke, eat, etc) to fight that depression. I like to believe that most people really don’t want to get to that point and the reason they quit is not to basically slow-suicide. I don’t know about the numbers, but as I saw in my life, most people want to keep busy as they don’t know what to do with themselves. Sure there are exceptions and it might be different per country; would be interesting to see stats if there are any.
- rnewme 2y agoYeah, that's why I said, with hesitation, that it's worse to be couch potato, than doing a perhaps pointless job. At least something is taking up part of your day and you're putting in the effort. I experienced it myself, I saw it in people around me, of you're out of the workforce for a long time you will have very thought time going back. And if you're in bad place financially, mentally, or both, you will absolutely sink sitting at home...
- itishappy 2y agoHow would increased unemployment benefits assist a worker below the poverty line? Unemployment payments are below minimum wage, and by definition cannot be supplemental income.
- anotherhue 2y agoIt would allow the worker to quit and search for new work, which can be difficult to do while holding down many jobs (strict absence policies, etc.)
- bearjaws 2y agoThe greatest threat is a couch potato who is going into a job they hate to bring everyone down with them.
- fragmede 2y agoPeople talk about the 1x engineer vs the 10x engineer, but less is said about the -5x engineer who drags everybody down with them and makes them hate work.
- otikik 2y agoWell, if the "couch potatoes" live better than the exploited worker, then the corps are a greater negative for society. They would be somehow gaslighting people into having worst lives than they can have. If an overexploited worker has a better life than someone unemployed, then the only moral problem is calling them "couch potatoes" in the first place :)