Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 5/2/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Using a minimum wage job to try to support a family. Anecdotally, for every job posting I see for a fry cook at McDonalds, I see a posting for a swing shift union position at the supermarket. Both have the same education/job experience requirements. I can't listen to the radio without hearing advertisements from trucking companies who promise good wages and a trip home weekly, without having to own your own rig. Would it be fun/convenient to work swing shift or only see your family once a week? Certainly not. But are we interested in making sure we provide opportunity, or are we interested in making sure we provide extremely fun/convenient opportunity?
If your concern is with the taxpayers' burden, perhaps we should be more focused on making sure the tax revenue is used more efficiently.
"Using a minimum wage job to try to support a family."
What's the alternative? If you don't have an education or great experience and you have a family, you have two choices: a low paying minimum wage job or no job.
"If your concern is with the taxpayers' burden, perhaps we should be more focused on making sure the tax revenue is used more efficiently."
I feel like a large wealth transfer from tax payers to companies like Walmart and McDonalds is inefficient.
I just provided alternatives. Selective reading does not drive your point home.
I'm sure you do feel that way. As I'm sure you don't feel that the failure of the social program(s) you apparently advocate for here (welfare, particularly) to do what they were designed to do is a contributing factor. Unfortunately, feelings have no real world application. The fact is that a rise in federal minimum wage adversely affects a majority of consumers (those earning more than minimum wage) by resulting in an increase in prices, as you stated yourself further back in the thread. Most adversely affecting the lower-middle class, for whom everyone claims that they advocate.
This may come as a shock, but I would wager that I'm at least as interested in helping the poor as you are. Where we differ is that you advocate for programs that pay the poor to continue to be poor, which is both fiscally unsustainable and a disservice to them as human beings. I'm more in favor of programs (or tweaks to existing programs) that help get them out of poverty.
Here's a hypothetical (and a giant run-on sentence) for you: Given today's society, if someone on welfare were making minimum wage at a 9:00 - 5:00 job while also receiving government aid under the current system, and they heard that advertisement for truck drivers I mentioned earlier on the radio, would they be more likely to tuck a little money away every month (since they have food stamps, etc. to help) to get the licensing required for a better paying job that gets them off of government assistance, or would they be more likely to continue on as they are, since the other path is pretty inconvenient? It would seem that one answer means everything is working as intended the way it is, while the other means the current system of government assistance is broken and needs to be addressed first. Unless, of course, you advocate for the existence of jobs everyone likes for pay everyone likes. In which case, awesome.
"I just provided alternatives."
You provided a made up example. I seriously doubt that people look at job postings and see a minimum wage position at McDonalds and another, higher paying position at the supermarket with the same requirements, and say, "you know what, I'd rather have the shittier, lower paying job." I'm guessing someone at McDonalds couldn't get the higher paying job, or they would.
I think your position that someone supporting their family while working a minimum wage is somehow "misusing minimum wage" is ridiculous. They took the job they could get.
"Here's a hypothetical"
It's a ridiculous hypothetical. Let's add a variable. What if that person working the minimum wage job was a single parent? How much more would they have to pay for childcare if they became a truck driver?
But, let's ignore that and look at the question.
A person is working a minimum wage job, let's say they are a Walmart cashier. The job isn't great. They are on assistance and are able to get by.
They hear your ad for truckers and consider their options.
They can take the truck driving job and get paid a little more than they do now after the assistance is eliminated. But, they take on a much harder, more stressful job with much longer hours. Or they can keep the sort of ****** job they have now and not take on all that and still get by.
I know I wouldn't take the trucking job, given that choice.
Part of the goal of government assistance is to prop up wages. People won't take the ****** job with the trucking company if the difference in pay isn't much more than what they are making now when the welfare is factored in. If the trucking company wants to attract workers, it will need to increase the salary it is offering.