Paying a "living wage" for menial jobs

DC's council is showing Walmart that capital!=absolute power.

jdzappa wrote:

I'm not necessarily against that Phoenix, but there's a fine balance. What DC is trying to do is singling out big box stores like WalMart and forcing them to pay a wage that is nearly 30 percent higher than prevailing wages for similar jobs. When WalMart says that's way too high and we can't afford to do business in DC, then the council still won't back down. Is it really such a victory to lose hundreds of those jobs instead of trying to find a middle ground?

A better question is why doesn't Walmart CEO Mike Duke forgo his 14% raise (Or his 4.3 million in bonuses? Or his $13.7 million in stock awards?) and redistribute that to his employees?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...

$20 a month for healthcare? I am laughing/crying/convulsing in my grave.

Meh. That's not as awful as it seems.

I'm not aware of many people working part time in the service industry where their share of the rent is 600/month. Granted, I'm talking about the Midwest here, but that number is more likely to be around 200-300 monthly for workers at this level.

Of note: I actually moonlight as a cook making 8 bucks an hour at a local restaurant, and nobody I work with lives without a roommate or significant other or both in order to stretch rent and utility payments.

And obamacare takes care of a few other issues, like covering kids under 26 under their parents insurance.

Napkin math has their average worker at 34 hours a week, though, which is hella high to assume they'd get a second job basically making more than they do at McDonald's. so...it's bad, but not as bad that think progress is making it out to be.

$300 for rent? It cost more than that for me to live with roommates almost fifteen years ago, when I was making close to minimum wage.

I've paid as little as $208 for rent, but generally I've known very few people paying under $400.

Must be a regional thing. I did not pay over 250 dollars a month for my share of the rent for the 13 years that separated my dorm life from buying a house.

That included corporate apartments like Edward rose and subleases.

Michigan is not a good benchmark for housing costs.

Let's put this another way;

How many hours can we, as societies in first world nations, reasonably demand individuals work in order to provide themselves with safe shelter and healthy food?

Personally I'd rather live in a world where people could do those things with fewer hours slaving away at a job which isn't likely to enable them to advance beyond their current circumstances.

One approach I think might help is raising the bottom edge of the minimum income tax bracket. I'm still baffled as to why this number is lower than the federally recognized poverty line but that seems a way to increase the money in pockets, stimulate spending, and yet avoid some of the inflationary forces that come with minimum wage increases.

clover wrote:

Michigan is not a good benchmark for housing costs. :)

The rent I had on a two-bedroom townhouse in the Detroit metro area (Canton township) 15 years ago was more that what I currently pay for mortgage+taxes+insurance on a 3-bedroom, 1800 square foot house in Indiana.

Heh, when I lived in Indiana I was upper middle class at $15/hr. Too bad it doesn't work that way in other places.

clover wrote:

Heh, when I lived in Indiana I was upper middle class at $15/hr. Too bad it doesn't work that way in other places.

Yeah; in Bloomington (granted, this was 14 years ago), I split an apartment with three friends, and paid $170/month.

Rent figures aside.... These budget figures are by definition after taxes. That means McDonald's is assuming either:

1) their workers are making minimum wage, which means to make 1105 dollars a month take-home they're working around 43-44 hours a week. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to attain a second job while juggling schooling, kids, etc.

2) their part time workers are working under the Obamacare mandated 30 hours weekly (most places are doing 28 hours for a buffer) to avoid having to provide healthcare. This put their average worker at around 11-12 dollars an hour to make 1105 per month after taxes while working 28 hours a week.

I find both scenerios highly unlikely, and while a case can be made that the rent, cable, and electric can feasibly be split in two or three, and the car payment justifiably removed (this socioeconomic group drives a beater paid for in cash, if they even own a car) - that still makes this budget fairly preposterous.

When I was 21, I made 6.08 / hour, paid 180 / month in rent, and worked 20-30 hours a week while atending college. That was about 500/month in take home pay. I'll be honest - it was a wonderful experience. While I totally understand that a minimum wage career is not something to aspire to, I learned more and had more freedom during that period that I have had since.

Seth wrote:

When I was 21, I made 6.08 / hour, paid 180 / month in rent, and worked 20-30 hours a week while atending college. That was about 500/month in take home pay. I'll be honest - it was a wonderful experience. While I totally understand that a minimum wage career is not something to aspire to, I learned more and had more freedom during that period that I have had since.

How many kids did you have? Did you have to pay your own tuition? Did college provide health insurance (or meals)? Did you have a car or did you walk/bike to school/work?

Not trying to attack you, but the answers to these questions can have a major impact on how 'wonderful' that kind of experience can be.

No, they're good questions, I don't feel attacked. If I'm using my example as a representation of minimum wage earners, these are important.

I did not have kids- I must have edited out the part where I mentioned that. But I paid tuition (mostly via subsidized loans), I had a 1100 dollar beater car i paid cash for, and i think I had insurance through my parents at age 21 but I never used it so I can't say for sure (although likely yes). I bought my own food, which was mostly discounted from the deli attached to where I worked, or cheap produce from my local discount store.

That makes me fairly typical with many people who work the service industry and other low wage jobs, even today. I am aware of a few people who are raising kids on dual incomes that consist of minimum wage and tips, and while I am astonished that they're doing it they're certainly the minority. There's even one couple that had to drastically downsize their life after going from near-median income to near-minimum wage. That included selling the car with payments owed on it and getting a beater, mailing the keys to the house back to the bank and getting a cheap apartment, and going to a cash-only lifestyle since the house decision trashed their credit. But: again, these are minority cases.

The vast majority of workers in food service are 18-35, unmarried and living with roommates, and have extremely low overhead. This information come with working with many places in the Michigan beer industry in addition to a few side projects that have me immersed in BOH work.

The biggest pain point? Many of these workers are currently dealing with the two-fold problem of facing having their hours cut to 28 hours while deciding whether to buy insurance or pay the (likely subsidized) insurance tax; both of which are products of obamacare.

Seth wrote:

The vast majority of workers in food service are 18-35, unmarried and living with roommates, and have extremely low overhead. This information come with working with many places in the Michigan beer industry in addition to a few side projects that have me immersed in BOH work.

But the average age of fast food workers has increased considerably over the past decade. In 2000 the average fast food worker was just 22 years old. In 2010 the average age was nearly 30. It's not just single people with low overhead anymore.

The Guardian[/url]]
While jobs at McDonalds and other fast food chains were once seen as the preserve of teenagers entering the job market, or students working part-time while still at school, the US recession has contributed to an increase in the average age of a fast food worker to 29.5, up from 22 in 2000.

Fair points, Seth. I've never worked in food service, only retail, so I can't really comment on the demographics of that field. But OG does bring up some interesting counter points, not to mention that the whole Wal-Mart in DC is a major sticking point in this discussion. And I'm sure that there are very different demographics for retail workers at minimum wage.

Not sure if the whole 'employers reducing employees hours to avoid paying healthcare' is fair to pin on 'Obamacare', because lots of companies used that tactic before that was implemented.

Granted, McDonalds are probably dickheads, but I think they're reading too much into the sample budget. It doesn't say "your 2nd job", and could be referring to the worker's partner's job. Also, it's summer, and at least in the northern hemisphere, most people probably aren't paying a heating bill.

I just had to defend McDonalds. I'm going to go cry in the shower now.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Also, it's summer, and at least in the northern hemisphere, most people probably aren't paying a heating bill.

But they'd be paying to run their air conditioners and spending more than $90 a month on electric. The average residential electric bill for the summer months pushes $400 making it very difficult for those workers to make ends meet.

Nel e nel: sorry, I did not mean to seem bitter or cast blame on Obamacare for the lowered hours and required insurance. From my perspective, the employers are
Blaming Obamacare, the employees are blaming the employers. Bottom line, though, is that in an industry where overtime didn't really matter (what's $2.65 * 1.5?) you've got a plethora of workers used to working multiple doubles a week who suddenly are faced with needing to find another job. It's a pain point that's intensified by the requirement to get insurance.

OG - how are those numbers quantified? Is that a nationwide average that includes the entire desert/jungle that is The South? Surely I don't pay anywhere near those electric bills up here in the Midwest - I freak out when my electric bill breaks 200 in July, and that's for a house with crappy insulation. 400 just seems...astronomical for a rental.

Bonus_Eruptus - good point. If one assumes that's the roommate/significant other/spouse's income, the numbers actually make a little more sense...for everyone under 26 (parents insurance) and without kids/pets.

Speaking of insurance, Do we have any estimates on what someone making poverty -ish money would pay out of pocket for subsidized, interchange offered insurance?

OG_slinger wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Also, it's summer, and at least in the northern hemisphere, most people probably aren't paying a heating bill.

But they'd be paying to run their air conditioners and spending more than $90 a month on electric. The average residential electric bill for the summer months pushes $400 making it very difficult for those workers to make ends meet.

I know, and I'm firmly in favor of them paying a livable wage, which they certainly are not. I just thought the article was jumping to an unfounded conclusion with the "turn your heat off" thing, that could've been easily explained by "It's summer, and A/C is covered under Electric". You're right, though.

Seth wrote:

OG - how are those numbers quantified? Is that a nationwide average that includes the entire desert/jungle that is The South? Surely I don't pay anywhere near those electric bills up here in the Midwest - I freak out when my electric bill breaks 200 in July, and that's for a house with crappy insulation. 400 just seems...astronomical for a rental.

Actually, it's my bad on this one. I misread the US Energy Information Administration report where it came from. The report said that the average residential spend on electricity for the summer months--June, July, and August--would total $395, not that it the spend would be $395 a month.

If you want more details, like by region, you can tear into this report.

After doing a little more digging (and making sure the coffee kicked in for my reading comprehension) it seems that the average monthly electric bill for the US is about $110, which is about 22% higher than what the McDonald's budget factored.

Dear Jesus, and I am planning to move to Texas? My snow white northern ass is bringing that average down (60 for June). What will my electric be in Texas? 200 a month?

KingGorilla wrote:

Dear Jesus, and I am planning to move to Texas? My snow white northern ass is bringing that average down (60 for June). What will my electric be in Texas? 200 a month?

Year round average of $139.18 (2011 dollars) a month. You'll spend a little more than $500 to keep cool during the summer months.

NPR reported how the schedules of part-time workers are becoming more and more erratic: only 17% of part-time retail workers had a set schedule. Those workers are finding it increasingly difficult to have a second job or even go to school because their part-time jobs effectively requires them to be available to work at the drop of a hat.

Typically, it's good for corporations because it allows them to institute a kind of just in time scheduling system that minimizes their labor costs, but it absolutely sucks for the worker.

There was a longer version of the story, but for the life of me I can't remember which NPR show or podcast I heard it on.

And corporations know that those people need ANY job badly enough that they can get away with being socially irresponsible like that.

But no, people who are struggling to make ends meet and have sh*tty jobs only live that way because they choose to. [/sarcasm]

OG_slinger wrote:

NPR reported how the schedules of part-time workers are becoming more and more erotic: only 17% of part-time retail workers had a set schedule.

Adjusted for any Heritage Foundation lurkers out there.

Honestly I think we're trying to project a lot of middle class expectations on minimum wage limits, and we're freaking out about things that aren't really a problem.

That article said nothing about just-in-time scheduling, which really only exists for doctors and late night IT people. It's talking about a set schedule, which I've literally never seen in 13 years. The schedule comes out every two weeks, you write down your hours and work them. This was how it was at Little Caesar's, Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, the YMCA, and every restaurant and brewery I've worked at. Minimum wage workers tend to *have* erratic lives, so their schedules are by nature erratic. It's kind of like trying to schedule a successful 25 person raid around people who have lives outside of WoW, but way harder. And the scheduler herself probably doesn't make more than 10 bucks an hour anyway. The reason schedules are erratic is because a lot of these workers are attending class, btw.

Pets, kids, cars, and living alone all count as luxuries in this demographic -- just like vacation homes, yachts, memberships at country clubs, and a room of rare saltwater fish all count as luxuries for my demographic.

Seth wrote:

Pets, kids, cars, and living alone all count as luxuries in this demographic -- just like vacation homes, yachts, memberships at country clubs, and a room of rare saltwater fish all count as luxuries for my demographic.

So you think more than 15% of the population* should live in households where these are luxuries? (* More than 15% because 15% is the proportion of American residents living below the poverty line, and working full time for Federal minimum wage puts you above that if you're a single-person household.)

Also note that the situation that article was describing is not the situation you are projecting onto the description:

Seth wrote:

The schedule comes out every two weeks, you write down your hours and work them.

NPR wrote:

"Workers can get called in at any time, and sometimes you only get a couple of hours of notice before you have to start work," says Wilder.