4 ms·

This sort of stuff rubs me the wrong way. I live about 20 minutes outside of Pittsburgh. When I graduated college 6 years ago, I held down a restaurant job whi

This sort of stuff rubs me the wrong way. I live about 20 minutes outside of Pittsburgh. When I graduated college 6 years ago, I held down a restaurant job while doing an internship that would eventually lead to my first full-time job in my field. I had a roommate who worked at a hotel. We found a two-bedroom apartment (a house split into 3 units) that was going for $425/month plus utilities. Because we split, I had to pay about $300/month to keep a roof over my head. I think I was making $8/hr, so the first week of the month mostly covered my living expenses (not including taxes and the like of course). Very different than the 78 hours that shows for PA. Anecdotal, I know, but the point being that if you're willing to make tradeoffs, you can find a way to live. My friend in Manhattan takes on two roommates to make his rent affordable. After my spouse and I got a house, we rented out our spare bedroom for a time to help pay down school loans and provide an affordable space for friends. I always remind myself that my grandmother was one of 13 children in a 3-bedroom home, and that many immigrant families of her generation had a boarder to help cover costs. There are always edge cases that need to be dealt with compassionately - the single, unskilled mom with a few kids, etc. But the underlying assumption of articles like this seems to be that minimum wage should get you a 2BR apartment, and that's a premise that I don't agree with.

humbleMouse 11y ago
Well said, I was trying to find a way to say this without sounding like a dick, you did a very good job!
neuromancer2701 11y ago
In additional most of these lower wage job should be for younger high school age or college students. A grown adult(lets say 25) shouldn't be working the entry level position at MickeyD's. That should be an outlying case and policy shouldn't be decided on corner cases. Youth unemployment is significantly higher than the national average and if wages are mandated even higher then no one will take the chance on a 15 year old.
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  > A grown adult(lets say 25) shouldn't be working the entry level position at MickeyD's. That should be an outlying case and policy shouldn't be decided on corner cases. Maybe you think they shouldn't be, but statistics show they are. Good jobs are hard to come by and the median age of fast-food workers is 28[0] (meaning half are older than that). It's absolutely not a weird corner case. It's a very common thing, and if we don't want adults with kids working those jobs, we're going to have to reverse decades of economic trends and start creating lots of better-paying jobs for marginally skilled workers. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/mcjobs-should-pay-too-inside-fast-food-workers-historic-protest-for-living-wages/265714/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/mcjobs-s...
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    Uniquely, it seems the act of grilling meat, and putting that between slices of bread, is harder to automate than driving a car. Or at least it's hard to automate for less than $15 an hour. Err $8 an hour.
    - neuromancer2701 11y ago
      I would argue that if the FEDs mandate 15$/hour, the impetus to automate the grilling and sandwich making will increase.
- doc_holliday 11y ago
  I dunno, I don't think it is an unreasonable aim of society that if you are supplying your labour to someone (why shouldn't this include McD's?), that you are able to at least live a reasonable life. By that I mean secure accomodation (not large, but comfortable), food and transport.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    The issue what is a reasonable life? We make our enlisted soldiers live in a barracks and eat cafeteria food. Minimum wage could afford that sort of lifestye. And I think it's fair to expect a job to provide for that. It could provide a dorm experience. But I don't think it's fair to expect it to support a family or a solo apartment. Because a lot of minimum wage workers do live with mom and dad or live in a bunch of buddies. Artificially increasing their salaries hurts families who have to pay more for products and services.
lotharbot 11y ago
> "the underlying assumption ... seems to be that minimum wage should get you a 2BR apartment" or, phrased another way, the underlying assumption is that if your labor isn't worth a full 2BR apartment to your employer, you shouldn't be allowed to work for part of it, you should be forced to rely on government entirely. I think it's a good thing that low-wage employees are partially government-subsidized, not because I like government subsidies, but because I dislike hard thresholds and cutoffs that make people have to jump over a significant gap in order to make small net gains. And, as you say, there's nothing inherently wrong with not being able to afford a 2BR apartment on your own. My sister can't afford a 2BR apartment, so she lives in a spare room in my house. My friends (teen parents) likewise can't afford a 2BR apartment, so they live in the other spare room in my house. There's certainly an argument to be made for doing more to subsidize corner cases (single unskilled mom with a few kids, no source of child support, etc.) but messing with the minimum wage isn't a particularly effective method.

humbleMouse 11y ago

Well said, I was trying to find a way to say this without sounding like a dick, you did a very good job!

neuromancer2701 11y ago

In additional most of these lower wage job should be for younger high school age or college students. A grown adult(lets say 25) shouldn't be working the entry level position at MickeyD's. That should be an outlying case and policy shouldn't be decided on corner cases. Youth unemployment is significantly higher than the national average and if wages are mandated even higher then no one will take the chance on a 15 year old.

ForHackernews 11y ago
> A grown adult(lets say 25) shouldn't be working the entry level position at MickeyD's. That should be an outlying case and policy shouldn't be decided on corner cases. Maybe you think they shouldn't be, but statistics show they are. Good jobs are hard to come by and the median age of fast-food workers is 28[0] (meaning half are older than that). It's absolutely not a weird corner case. It's a very common thing, and if we don't want adults with kids working those jobs, we're going to have to reverse decades of economic trends and start creating lots of better-paying jobs for marginally skilled workers. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/mcjobs-should-pay-too-inside-fast-food-workers-historic-protest-for-living-wages/265714/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/mcjobs-s...
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Uniquely, it seems the act of grilling meat, and putting that between slices of bread, is harder to automate than driving a car. Or at least it's hard to automate for less than $15 an hour. Err $8 an hour.
  - neuromancer2701 11y ago
    I would argue that if the FEDs mandate 15$/hour, the impetus to automate the grilling and sandwich making will increase.
doc_holliday 11y ago
I dunno, I don't think it is an unreasonable aim of society that if you are supplying your labour to someone (why shouldn't this include McD's?), that you are able to at least live a reasonable life. By that I mean secure accomodation (not large, but comfortable), food and transport.
- rhino369 11y ago
  The issue what is a reasonable life? We make our enlisted soldiers live in a barracks and eat cafeteria food. Minimum wage could afford that sort of lifestye. And I think it's fair to expect a job to provide for that. It could provide a dorm experience. But I don't think it's fair to expect it to support a family or a solo apartment. Because a lot of minimum wage workers do live with mom and dad or live in a bunch of buddies. Artificially increasing their salaries hurts families who have to pay more for products and services.

lotharbot 11y ago

> "the underlying assumption ... seems to be that minimum wage should get you a 2BR apartment" or, phrased another way, the underlying assumption is that if your labor isn't worth a full 2BR apartment to your employer, you shouldn't be allowed to work for part of it, you should be forced to rely on government entirely. I think it's a good thing that low-wage employees are partially government-subsidized, not because I like government subsidies, but because I dislike hard thresholds and cutoffs that make people have to jump over a significant gap in order to make small net gains. And, as you say, there's nothing inherently wrong with not being able to afford a 2BR apartment on your own. My sister can't afford a 2BR apartment, so she lives in a spare room in my house. My friends (teen parents) likewise can't afford a 2BR apartment, so they live in the other spare room in my house. There's certainly an argument to be made for doing more to subsidize corner cases (single unskilled mom with a few kids, no source of child support, etc.) but messing with the minimum wage isn't a particularly effective method.