The Working Poor - Fastest Growing Jobs

Newsweek Editorial

Just found it interesting, thought I'd share.

[edit]
Another report from our friends across the pond

Notable quotes from the Guardian story:

Last year alone, another 1.7 million Americans slipped below the poverty line, bringing the total to 34.6 million, one in eight of the population. Over 13 million of them are children. In fact, the US has the worst child poverty rate and the worst life expectancy of all the world's industrialised countries, and the plight of its poor is worsening.
while poverty rates have been rising in the past few years, the number of Americans on welfare has been steadily declining. Another impact of the 1996 welfare reform was that the unemployed were obliged to take service jobs at the minimum wage (now $5.15 per hour) without benefits such as paid holidays or health insurance. On paper they were part of the success of the welfare-to-work project, but the jobs stocking supermarket shelves or cleaning offices usually left them worse off, especially if someone in the family fell sick.

In Ohio, according to Lisa Hamler-Podolski, more than 40% of the people in the food lines are the working poor.

The article appears to blame Bush for a lot of this, but I don't think that's where the blame lies. This is a growing problem that is ignored by both parties.
[/edit]

Ahh, and who says the media has no liberal bias.

First, I have to get this out of the way - Anna Quindlen is one of the most bleeding heart liberals around. Have no doubt, she has an agenda.

So, let''s break down her article. We begin with another example of ''policy by antecdote''. Let''s talk about someone who is in a bad situation, and paint that as representative of the average situation (which it isn''t).

It's a myth that has become so divorced from reality that it might as well begin with the words "Once upon a time." According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1.6 million New Yorkers, or the equivalent of the population of Philadelphia, suffer from "food insecurity," which is a fancy way of saying they don't have enough to eat.

Okay...so first...liberals have added a PC term for going hungry? ''Food insecurity''? Seriously? Oh, sorry. What I find amazing when we talk about people starving in America is that the US is one of the only nations in the world where our ''poor'' are overweight. I have no idea where she is getting her hunger statistics, but I''ll try to find the survey I saw that said that, as a nation, the US has almost wiped out child hunger.

According to Shulman, even in the go-go '90s one out of every four American workers made less than $8.70 an hour, an income equal to the government's poverty level for a family of four. Many, if not most, of these workers have no health care, sick pay or retirement provisions.
A living wage, affordable health care and housing, the bedrock understanding that it's morally wrong to prosper through the casual exploitation of those who make your prosperity possible.

You have to give it to liberals. They sure know how to make a compelling catch phrase. A ''living wage''. I mean, who doesn''t support the idea that people should be able to make enough money from their job that they can afford to eke out a living?

Problem is, when you dig a little deeper, you see that it doesn''t hold up. First - a ''living wage'', according to the liberal definition, is the ability to support a family of four on a single paycheck. Do most low-inclome workers actually have a family of four to support? According to a recent study by the Cato Institute, fewer than one out of five minimum wage workers has a family to support. These are usually young people just starting out. So the initial premise, that all of these low-wage workers have starving families is flawed from the beginning.

But, for sake of argument, let''s assume that there is a huge problem that needs solving. How would we do it? Well, the calls for a ''living wage'' are basically a disguised call for a higher minimum wage.

Ahh, there have been minimum wage laws for generations. Now we have a historical precedent that we can study to see the impacts of those laws, and extrapolate what would happen if they are raised.

Most studies have shown that the imposition of a minimum wage results in fewer people being employed at the artificially higher rates. And that increase in unemployment typically falls disproportionally on the poor.

Matter of fact, a recent study from the Cato Institute shows the impact where living wages have been imposed. Job losses in these cases aren''t surprising. Making anything more expensive almost invariably leads to fewer purchases...including labor.

While trying to solve a non-existent problem -- supporting families that (for the most part) don''t exist -- the drive for a living wage creates the very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all.

From Thomas Sowell:

People in minimum wage jobs do not stay at the minimum wage permanently. Their pay increases as they accumulate experience and develop skills. It increases an average of 30 percent in just their first year of employment. Other studies show that low-income people become average-income people in a few years and high-income people later in life.

All of this depends on their having a job in the first place, however. But the living wage kills jobs.

As imposed wage rates rise, so do job qualifications, so that less skilled or less experienced workers become ""unemployable."" Think about it. Every one of us would be ""unemployable"" if our pay rates were raised high enough.

I''ll have to ask my friend for a reference. One of his favorite cold war stories is how sometime in late 70s PBS did a documentary on the ""poor folks"" in America. Well if you were to say, goto West Virginia you can find alot of them. And dude WV is always in top 2 overweight states in the union. So one of the soviet leaders gets a hold of this as a show of the obvious decadence of the American people. It backfired as badly as it could; it showed that even the poorest people in America have a structure to call their own (trailer park beats Stalin era highrises...i know i''ve visited one), half have TVs, and alot of them smoke cigarettes and are overweight. Every last one of those points, including access to quality American cigarettes (soviet ones were unspeakabley bad I''m told), just glamorized the promised land of America all the more.

When I visited Russia with the U-M Men''s Glee Club in May, 92 (9 months after communism bit it), I came face to face with the fact that even though by American standards I was about the poorest person I knew at U-M, I was one of the richest people in St. Petersburg, a city of several million folks. I had a ''79 Chevette (cost $400). With that alone I could have made a great living as an independent taximan in St. Petersburg. The average montly income was 800 rubles. That was $8 at the time, and I had ~$500 in spending money with me (about $1000 less than most of other guys on trip). Boohoo poor me. I could only afford to live in Russia for a few years on what I brought with me, more since I''d be smart enough to go black market with my American cash.

We''re rich. But the real problems which you can''t dismiss with how rich we may be in comparison to the world, do go hand and hand with American ""poverty"". Things like low literacy rates, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancy. The stuff that matters more than how much rice-a-roni we can afford.

And JMJ is certainly right in pointing out that American ""poverty"" figures are like a national passtime for certain people to manipulate. I would, however, love to see some real statistics where all of the gimicks (""poor college students"") are taken out.

Remember how there weren''t any homeless during the Clinton presidency? At least no homeless stories were written in major news outlets. Now that those evil Republicans are in control we''re all just a paycheck away from the street.

Quick note for now: I hadn''t realized that Anna Quindlen had a rep; I don''t usually read Newsweek, JMJ. I''ll just consider her a liberal Anne Coulter: an extremist who bends facts badly. (I looked up more on Anna and realized how far left-wing she is)

Well sure you were wealthy there Roo, things cost less. Granted, those people had it rough, but if you converted the cash you had to the equivalent of theirs in terms of relative buying power, you wouldn''t be so far apart. What I mean is, let''s say you took your $500 and figured you could buy, say, 100 loaves of bread here in the US. To buy 100 loaves of bread in Russia at the time, maybe you needed 200 rubles.
I''m sure I''m not explaing this right. I know what I mean, I jsut suck at the writing. What I''m trying to say is that income is relative to the local economy.

What I''m trying to say is that income is relative to the local economy.

Sure, but poverty also shouldn''t only be a measure of how well off you are compared to other people in your own economy either. Most Americans in ""poverty"" have a place to live and food on the table, own cars and televisions, and have access to education - all the way though graduate school if they want it - without having to pay a dime.

By no reasonable standard can this be called poverty - except by looking at US income as some sort of bell curve to which we apply incredibly arbitrary categorizations. The poorest people in this country would be considered ""rich"" by the standards of most of the world for most of history.

[quote=""ralcydan""]

The poorest people in this country would be considered ""rich"" by the standards of most of the world for most of history.

I''m sure being considered rich by the average African citizen is a great comfort to the guy that has to live in his car and can''t find a job.

I''m sure being considered rich by the average African citizen is a great comfort to the guy that has to live in his car and can''t find a job.

Ah, policy by anecdote - a fine American tradition. First of all, is this a big problem? Got any numbers on the widespread prevalence of ""Datsun homeless""?

And if this is a big problem, I guess all of the tax money we spend on rent controls, welfare and homelessness isn''t working. Maybe it''s time to abandon these programs and try something else.

Problem is, when you dig a little deeper, you see that it doesn''t hold up. First - a ''living wage'', according to the liberal definition, is the ability to support a family of four on a single paycheck. Do most low-inclome workers actually have a family of four to support?

Current National Minimum wage: $5.15 / hour

Let''s say you lose 10% (a rather conservative estimate). So, you make about... $740 a month, take home, assuming a 10% tax take, on a 40 hours a work week.

That''s $740 - which includes rent, phone, electricity, water, and food. What''s that? You''ve already eaten through your monthly paycheck after paying rent, electricity, and food? Don''t worry, though... in these tough economic times, your boss is proably forced to only take $90,000 a year instead of $105,000 a year... so, as you take another loan out at 36% from the CashPayDay advance place, feel sorrow for your white-collar boss as he''s forced to cut his Aruba vacation down to 14 days from the original 18 day vacation schedule. Horror!

What percentage of minimum wage earners have only one income? What percentage are under 18? Under 21? What percentage are students? How many people stay at minimum wage and for how long?

l''ll tell you what. You keep adding up low numbers with no point of reference and shrieking in ""horror!"", and I''ll throw out equally useless stories about welfare moms pumping illegitimate babies by whatever random man can stay out of prison long enough to spread their seed.

Sound like a productive conversation?

Work is worth what it is worth. Changing the amount of pay recieved for entry level work will only result in massive inflation to prices of basic goods. The more money in circulation (compared to actual goods available to buy), the less money is worth.

I seriously doubt most people who make $105,000 a year take 18 day Aruba vacations unless they are single.

"" and I''ll throw out equally useless stories about welfare moms pumping illegitimate babies by whatever random man can stay out of prison long enough to spread their seed. ""

Gosh, it must be great to be from such an affluent, high value neighborhood! I''m sure that as you wear your Dockers, sip your Starbucks, and decide which Cardigan to wear for the Workday, you think to yourself ""Gee! I wonder if I will meet anyone from a lower socio-economic stratum as myself! Goodness, I hope they don''t have an offensive body odor, or else I might be forced to have Jiles run the air conditioner on high to cleanse the air from the unseemly aroma of the unwashed bodies in my employ!""

Both tales equally over the top, it seems. However, the problem is, I live in rural Tennessee, where the average order of business is ""Children first... questions later!"". A lot of the people I know have kids, are unmarried, and are living on minimum wage. They aren''t ""rising up the ranks of employable economics"" - they''re stuck in barely skilled, minimum wage jobs. I don''t know where this magical fairlyland of ""rising above minimum wage"" exists, but it sure isn''t here in Tennessee.

How many people stay at minimum wage and for how long?

Oh, you''re right. A lot of people here get 0.15 cents an hour rouse after 6 months or so... is that what you mean? Does
$24 a month (before taxes) propel you into another economic bracket? I guess it might. If we all had access to magical collegiate programs with full scholarships and free happy-hats for everyone, I suppose I''d have no complaints. But, the facts remain - your average ""unskilled"" American worker has no protection, no security, and no future in this economy.

That''s an awfully long post just to say, ""no I have no idea what the answers are to your questions.""

But, the facts remain - your average ""unskilled"" American worker has no protection, no security, and no future in this economy.

I don''t know how to tell you this, but those aren''t ""facts"", they are ""rhetoric""... Facts would include some basic knowledge of how widespread this ""problem"" is, and what the ramifications in society are.

By the way, anyone who qualifies for college can go. There are these little things called ""student loans"" that ensure that.

I live in rural Tennessee, where the average order of business is ""Children first... questions later!"". A lot of the people I know have kids, are unmarried, and are living on minimum wage. They aren''t ""rising up the ranks of employable economics""

Then they should stop having kids so young and cutting off opportunities for themselves. Of course lots of people raise families, work, and go to school. Just because something is hard, doesn''t mean it deserves a rant about how someone else needs to take responsibility for another''s failures and choices.

I happen to live in Tennessee as well and just last election they started a lottery to socialize college admissions. I think the rule is anyone who gets at least a 3.0 recieves scholarships. This is a ""way out"" of poverty if someone is inclined to use it. Of course being a lottery it is also a way to stay in poverty by buying miniscule chances to get rich.

Then they should stop having kids so young and cutting off opportunities for themselves.

You''re right... the whole state is going to change because of ralcydan''s wisdom. You might as well disband the welfare deprartments, get rid of condoms, and stop sex education.. Because if they listened to ralcydan, we wouldn''t have these problems. Every pregnancy would be 100% premeditated, and every child would be completely planned, born into a family earning a minimum of $90,000 a year before taxes.

Human nature is about choice and failure... and about dealing with it when things don''t go as planned. Not everyone is born a priveleged member of society on the easy track for higher education.

You might as well disband the welfare deprartments, get rid of condoms, and stop sex education..

Finally something we agree upon.

Human nature is about choice and failure... and about dealing with it when things don''t go as planned.

Actually you seem to be suggesting that peopleshouldn''thave to deal with these things.

Not everyone is born a priveleged member of society on the easy track for higher education.

Like I said, there isn''t a person in the country who can''t go to college if they qualify.

I''m really not sure what your complaint here is. Just ranting? Or would you like to share what you think the problem is, and what solution should be in place..?

Not everyone is born a priveleged member of society on the easy track for higher education.

Although the implication is that we were born priveleged.

Although the implication is that we were born priveleged.

I know. I always enjoy people ranting about how we justcan''tknow what it''s like to be poor/black/out-of-work/struggling/etc. without knowing a thing about us...

Human nature is about choice and failure... and about dealing with it when things don''t go as planned

But, actually, the whole concept of a ''living wage'' and welfare assures that the people that make these mistakes never actually do have to deal with the consequences of their mistakes. We, the taxpayers, do.

What I find amazing when we talk about people starving in America is that the US is one of the only nations in the world where our ''poor'' are overweight.

You need to be able to make a distinction here JMJ. If you dont get enough to eat, it doesnt mean that you dont eat anything and it doesnt mean that the food you are eating isnt conducive to being fat. If you live off of a couple twinkies a day, you are probably going to be fat. If you dont eat for a few days, and pig out on a couple bags of oreos, you are going to be fat. Soda doesnt require eating and it contains plenty of things to make you fat.

In college some 10 years ago, I was eating poorly (mac n cheese) and not enough and drinking a lot of Dr Pepper to curb my appetite. I had beers at friends keggers every now and then. I was thin mostly, but I had some nagging love handles and a small beer gut.

Even if we concede that most of the ""working poor"" that are trying to live off minimum wage do not have families, you cant allow that to ignore the fact that there are families that do try to live off minimum wage salaries. Even if they may not be in the majority, they do exist and they do have problems, especially if they dont have medical benefits. On that note, should the single ""working poor"" not have any medical benefits?

In the same way that I''ve yet to meet a vegetarian who was raised on a farm, I''ve yet to meet someone who can talk about welfare and being poor as if those are statistics and not a reality for a lot of folks who hasn''t been hungry, and not by choice.

And it works both ways. I had a T.A. in college who tried to lecture me on how if I was donating a meal credit towards homeless people (turned out to be rip off, they got 30% of what I donated) i should not go eat dinner so that I would know what it''s like to be hungry. She was uberliberal, and uberfeminist (hey so am i...) and uber ignorant. I basically went off on her and ranted back, ""How can you learn what it''s like to be hungry by skipping a meal, when you have the money in your pocket to buy a meal. Being hungry means no food, no choice about it, and no way to get a meal.""

I think what you fundamentally don''t understand there Ral and JMJ is that real poor folks as opposed to welfare cheats are stubborn and prideful, and fricking hate taking handouts from anybody. If they have to...it just does very bad things to the psyche. But temporary welfare *is* a safety net when not abused. So are unemployment benefits.

Your quickness to dismiss rural TN isn''t just about dismissing rural TN. It would include the rural MI, WV, and VA that I at least have direct knowledge of, and I would infer to other states from there.

It''s somewhat self-fulfilling as well, I''ll grant you. Our guidance counselors in my rural h.s. were the people who really didn''t ""make it out."" They came back to their hometown. They encourage people to goto local community colleges, and maybe if they were the real ""smart"" kids, to State. Most of the rest they tried to send to secretarial and trade type places. They knew not to talk to me unless asked. I''m the only one from my school who went to U-MI during the 4 years I was there.

Roo, I don''t disagree with anything you said. I disagree that the way to address that problem is through the Federal government or through a massive social program.

People in that situation used to fall back on family, church, or local community. Those institutions are capable of helping even those that don''t want to be helped, in a manner that a nameless bureaucrat in Washington could never hope to achieve.

And weirdly enough I probably agree with you more about social programs than I''m letting on. I don''t think we have the solutions, but creating dependence on welfare for decades and then saying, ""Bad welfare recipients, bad!"" and taking all of it away isn''t exactly a super idea either.

I thought about what I posted on the way home, and in a way I felt like I owed more of an explanation or an apology to you (JMJ) and Ral, because I could have been a little more...clear, and a little less accusatory.

You''re both pretty obviously intelligent guys who come from a background of knowing that you can do with your life what you want, and that you''ll get back whatever you put in. You see the choices you have with your life, and probably saw those choices back in high school. I think it''s hard to imagine, but having grown up in a poor/rural community I can tell you that there is a majority mindset that doesn''t see those choices as being available. Part of it stems from the kid''s parents (and teachers, and guidance counselors) also being people who never moved more than 15 miles from where they grew up. While there''s nothing inherently wrong with that, the idea that a community that''s been devestated by businesses moving out of state/country, by hard times on the farm or elsewhere, will magically ""lift themselves up by the bootstraps"" and see the value and opportunity in all of the free government stuff like education is to me ludicrous and naive. Which doesn''t mean you are, but it is something maybe to think about. Being on welfare is like a final judgment...there is nothing for you that someone didn''t give you out of pity. There are no choices left at that point, that aren''t forced on you.

Solving the social problems associated with poverty, which was my original point, doesn''t have much to do with whether people are eating. It does have something to do with the only doctor they see is in the E.R., the only birth control education they get is parents refusing to discuss sex or have it discussed in the public schools, the only jobs available are demeaning and exhausting...

I don''t expect the government to solve it. Nor do I expect the government to ignore it. I''m a pragmatist. I wish the government was.

Very nicely put Roo. I agree that there are places where poverty is ingrained in the communal fabric. But, at the same time, we live in an astonishingly mobile society. Opportunity is almost guaranteed to be within one tank of gas away. I am not trivializing the courage it takes to uproot and move towards that opportunity, only pointing out that it exists.

For every story you have about someone that feels trapped by their surroundings, I can point out one of someone that refused to let that beat them down. For every story you have about parents that never moved more than 15 miles, I can point out one where those same parents refused to let their children succumb to the same fate.

There is no easy answer. There is no quick fix. My problem is with people that think that passing the problem off to the government is a solution. It is a matter of desire and opportunity. The opportunities exist many times over. The desire has to come from within.

But don''t you think my example is systemic, while yours is individual? I''m talking about the majority.

Like my 10 year reunion where 85% of my class still lives within 30 miles of their parents, and many started having kids at age 19-20. Yes some of them are ""successful"" if you gave that economically (you don''t have to), but many were definitely not. It''s funny that most of them expected me to be rich by now, which as I''m currently going back to school to become a high school choir teacher...is not the case.

on related note...

What do you think about states giving incentives to get a certain GPA (provided you''re taking *academic*courses) in high school or be in certain top % of your class and getting scholarships or guaranteed admission to a college, etc., that way?

Speaking of which, I got seriously hosed my junior year in college when Michigan Competitive Scholarship fund ran out of money, and refused to tell me or financial aid until nobody had money left to do anything about it. Despite not eating much, I eventually just ran out of money and had to take out much more expensive loans. Not that I''m still bitter...oh wait...yeah I''m still bitter really.

What do you think about states giving incentives to get a certain GPA (provided you''re taking *academic*courses) in high school or be in certain top % of your class and getting scholarships or guaranteed admission to a college, etc., that way?

Considering that most of them fund these efforts with lotteries, I''m not overly fond of them.

What do you think about states giving incentives to get a certain GPA (provided you''re taking *academic*courses) in high school or be in certain top % of your class and getting scholarships or guaranteed admission to a college, etc., that way?

It really depends on how the programs are set up.
For example, I went to a private high school in Texas. To receive admission at UT, you had to be in the top 10% of your class.
Since I went to a private school, the top 10% of my class probably had a GPA above 4.0. (Advanced Placement classes have a possible 5.0)

I wanted to go to UT, but I would have never gotten in under that system even though my GPA was around a 3.6.

When making a program that gives incentives for GPA or ranking, special care needs to be taken to assure that you don''t inadvertently screw some one who is very deserving of a reward for their hard work.

*Fixed spelling on edit

People in that situation used to fall back on family, church, or local community. Those institutions are capable of helping even those that don''t want to be helped, in a manner that a nameless bureaucrat in Washington could never hope to achieve.

What is holding back the family/chruch/community from taking the prime role in charity? What is it that prevents them from making a difference? You keep saying ""Government, no; church and community, yes;"" so why isn''t it happening?

You keep saying ""Government, no; church and community, yes;"" so why isn''t it happening?

It does and is. What makes you think it isn''t?

Your repeated insistance to cut the government out. What makes you think that churches and communities, as is, will make any headway? They obviously haven''t made much of a dent, and since we are talking about improving the situation, what will change if communities and churches do it alone?