3 ms·

"Taxpayers are spending a lot of money subsidizing not people who won't work, but industries that don't pay their workers a living wage. Through these four prog

"Taxpayers are spending a lot of money subsidizing not people who won't work, but industries that don't pay their workers a living wage. Through these four programs alone, federal and state governments spend about $150 billion a year aiding working families, according to the analysis (the authors define people who are working here as those who worked at least 10 hours a week, at least half the year)." Obviously that kind of schedule isn't going to yield a "living income". "...the important point here is that is quite possible to work hard in this country and still need help buying dinner" Maybe, but not on the evidence presented here.

eropple 12y ago
Perhaps it isn't always obvious in this lovely epistemic closure of the tech industry, but there's very often no more work than that. Forcing workers into laughably tiny shifts and providing no recourse except to quit the job barely covering part of their needs is par for the course.
- ryandrake 12y ago
  Even if there was more work available, those 10 (or 20) hours will usually be different times every day, making committing to a second job (with an equally random schedule) impossible without overlapping time slots.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Also don't forget that often you don't find out what tiny shift you have until the last minute so you basically have to make yourself free for full-time hours to do part-time work.
ctdonath 12y ago
Often, the biggest problem with resolving differing positions on sociopolitical topic is agreeing on the same definitions for terms so everyone can argue about the same thing. In this case, "working family" is a motivating axiom for one side while the other is bewildered at the notion that a mere 260 hours of menial work should somehow equate to a "living wage" supporting 3+ people at an internationally elevated standard of living (family of 3 at US "poverty line" of $20,000/yr is at world top 20th percentile). The more I see arguments about this subject, the more I see the "still need help buying dinner" isn't so much having the money to buy, but having education to know what to buy.

eropple 12y ago

Perhaps it isn't always obvious in this lovely epistemic closure of the tech industry, but there's very often no more work than that. Forcing workers into laughably tiny shifts and providing no recourse except to quit the job barely covering part of their needs is par for the course.

ryandrake 12y ago
Even if there was more work available, those 10 (or 20) hours will usually be different times every day, making committing to a second job (with an equally random schedule) impossible without overlapping time slots.
emodendroket 12y ago
Also don't forget that often you don't find out what tiny shift you have until the last minute so you basically have to make yourself free for full-time hours to do part-time work.

ctdonath 12y ago

Often, the biggest problem with resolving differing positions on sociopolitical topic is agreeing on the same definitions for terms so everyone can argue about the same thing. In this case, "working family" is a motivating axiom for one side while the other is bewildered at the notion that a mere 260 hours of menial work should somehow equate to a "living wage" supporting 3+ people at an internationally elevated standard of living (family of 3 at US "poverty line" of $20,000/yr is at world top 20th percentile). The more I see arguments about this subject, the more I see the "still need help buying dinner" isn't so much having the money to buy, but having education to know what to buy.