Minimum wage workers cannot afford rent in any U.S. state

[Pock]

It has long been a staple of American society; you work hard you can have a good life. No person working 40+ hours a week, being a productive member of society, should be living in poverty.

Nonsense. If teenagers can work flipping burgers for “a living wage”, what’s the incentive for them to graduate high school? Without that FREE education, they are doomed to staying in that dead-end job. Instead, encourage the teens to make the best of their taxpayer-funded education. Not all kids will go on to college, but let’s see more options like Woodruff Career & Technical Center. Programs like those offered there are more likely to break the cycle of poverty.

@JustRight
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The incentive, or objective, should be to not be a drain on society. Both from the employer's perspective and the employee. Being productive, and working and not choosing to sit at home and live off government assistance should be the goal. You shouldn't penalize productivity due to the type of job. Working is good. Sitting at home and living off public assistance, bad.

How can I say this and it not sound horrible... I'll just say it, believe it or not, there are some people who are incapable of higher education or functioning at higher-levels for higher-functioning jobs. The whole "get an education:" over-looks the fact that some people just aren't cut out for it. It isn't like they missed a math class or two and can make it up at a community college.

I've worked job fairs before, locally, trust me, some people are not capable of it.

[AV8R]

It has long been a staple of American society; you work hard you can have a good life. No person working 40+ hours a week, being a productive member of society, should be living in poverty.

Nonsense. If teenagers can work flipping burgers for “a living wage”, what’s the incentive for them to graduate high school? Without that FREE education, they are doomed to staying in that dead-end job. Instead, encourage the teens to make the best of their taxpayer-funded education. Not all kids will go on to college, but let’s see more options like Woodruff Career & Technical Center. Programs like those offered there are more likely to break the cycle of poverty.

@JustRight
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The incentive, or objective, should be to not be a drain on society. Both from the employer's perspective and the employee. Being productive, and working and not choosing to sit at home and live off government assistance should be the goal. You shouldn't penalize productivity due to the type of job. Working is good. Sitting at home and living off public assistance, bad.

How can I say this and it not sound horrible... I'll just say it, believe it or not, there are some people who are incapable of higher education or functioning at higher-levels for higher-functioning jobs. The whole "get an education:" over-looks the fact that some people just aren't cut out for it. It isn't like they missed a math class or two and can make it up at a community college.

I've worked job fairs before, locally, trust me, some people are not capable of it.

I tend to agree but if minimum wage is raised to $15 then what is a good wage for the skilled jobs currently paying $15? How much do we pay EMT's? IT techs? CNA's? Those jobs all are paying around $15 an hour. Why bother with the training and responsibility if you can make the same flipping a burger?

[JustRight]

It has long been a staple of American society; you work hard you can have a good life. No person working 40+ hours a week, being a productive member of society, should be living in poverty.

Nonsense. If teenagers can work flipping burgers for “a living wage”, what’s the incentive for them to graduate high school? Without that FREE education, they are doomed to staying in that dead-end job. Instead, encourage the teens to make the best of their taxpayer-funded education. Not all kids will go on to college, but let’s see more options like Woodruff Career & Technical Center. Programs like those offered there are more likely to break the cycle of poverty.

@JustRight
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The incentive, or objective, should be to not be a drain on society. Both from the employer's perspective and the employee. Being productive, and working and not choosing to sit at home and live off government assistance should be the goal. You shouldn't penalize productivity due to the type of job. Working is good. Sitting at home and living off public assistance, bad.

How can I say this and it not sound horrible... I'll just say it, believe it or not, there are some people who are incapable of higher education or functioning at higher-levels for higher-functioning jobs. The whole "get an education:" over-looks the fact that some people just aren't cut out for it. It isn't like they missed a math class or two and can make it up at a community college.

I've worked job fairs before, locally, trust me, some people are not capable of it.

There are plenty of better than $15/hour jobs for people who won’t make it past high school. Do you know that Woodruff is for high school juniors and seniors? It’s specifically designed for kids to learn a trade INSTEAD OF prepping for college. They can choose from trades like barbering, nail technician, nurse assistant, culinary arts, and hair braiding. Once they graduate, they are ready to step into decent-paying jobs with the potential for advancement.
There are also career paths for the developmentally disabled. Places like Epic! in Peoria are doing a great job of placing these young adults. Most can handle low-skill jobs, like janitorial services.

[Pock]

Nonsense. If teenagers can work flipping burgers for “a living wage”, what’s the incentive for them to graduate high school? Without that FREE education, they are doomed to staying in that dead-end job. Instead, encourage the teens to make the best of their taxpayer-funded education. Not all kids will go on to college, but let’s see more options like Woodruff Career & Technical Center. Programs like those offered there are more likely to break the cycle of poverty.

@JustRight
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The incentive, or objective, should be to not be a drain on society. Both from the employer's perspective and the employee. Being productive, and working and not choosing to sit at home and live off government assistance should be the goal. You shouldn't penalize productivity due to the type of job. Working is good. Sitting at home and living off public assistance, bad.

How can I say this and it not sound horrible... I'll just say it, believe it or not, there are some people who are incapable of higher education or functioning at higher-levels for higher-functioning jobs. The whole "get an education:" over-looks the fact that some people just aren't cut out for it. It isn't like they missed a math class or two and can make it up at a community college.

I've worked job fairs before, locally, trust me, some people are not capable of it.

I tend to agree but if minimum wage is raised to $15 then what is a good wage for the skilled jobs currently paying $15? How much do we pay EMT's? IT techs? CNA's? Those jobs all are paying around $15 an hour. Why bother with the training and responsibility if you can make the same flipping a burger?

Being productive and not a drain on society should be what we strive to achieve. We shouldn't penalize productivity. I wouldn't want to flip a burger even at 15 dollars an hour. That is still a job that most people probably wouldn't want. If I had to choose between an IT job and a cook, both paying 15 an hour, I'd do whatever it took to get the IT job. I would however, appreciate the cushion of being able to get a cooking job, at 15 an hour, that would hold me over until I found an IT job... again, being productive and not a drain on society should be the goal.

[AV8R]

you failed to answer the question.

[Pock]

you failed to answer the question.

Did I? I said I would still want the IT job. I'll clarify, The Information Technology field is still my preferred interest regardless. I would still take an IT job even if it paid the same as a cook. Why bother? Because it is what I want to do to be productive. Everyone has a preference, the narrative that everyone would want to flip burgers if it paid 15 dollars an hour is a false narrative. People would still seek the job they want regardless of the pay(assuming it didn't land them on goverment assistance of course)

Actually, I think it would give people a bit more flexibility. Maybe there are some mediocre accountants that would be outstanding chefs if the pay was good enough.

[JustRight]

@Pock said:
“Everyone has a preference, the narrative that everyone would want to flip burgers if it paid 15 dollars an hour is a false narrative.“
That simply isn’t true. SOME people have a preference. Others just want the path of least resistance. They don’t care what they are doing 8 hours a day, as long as it pays them enough to have the things they need and want. In fact, there are people who are willing to do boring, monotonous jobs because they don’t need to think about that job after they punch out. And we, as a society, need those people. We need people to stock the shelves at Wal-Mart, or collect garbage, or even do a repetitive job at an assembly plant. To YOU, those jobs would be mind numbingly boring. To others, it’s a means to an end: a cool car, a bass boat, a tattoo, jewelry...

[Joepyeweed]

If one thing the pandemic should have taught us is that many of the food supply jobs are essential. Truckers, shelf stockers, checkers, janitors, etc. They are jobs that need to be done. They may not be high tech, or high skilled, or have advancement opportunities, but people working those jobs deserve a living wage. Companies who hire those workers should not rely on taxpayers to subsidize their workforce with snap or housing assistance or Medicaid because the wages And benefits are so low.

Remember the comment on a different thread about price of goods purchased should reflect their actual cost.

One of the reason stuff at big box stores is so cheap is because a large portion of the workforce is subsidized by tax payers through snap, Medicaid, etc. Costs are pushed on to taxpayers rather than included in the retail price.

[Joepyeweed]

If one thing the pandemic should have taught us is that many of the food supply jobs are essential. Truckers, shelf stockers, checkers, janitors, etc. They are jobs that need to be done. They may not be high tech, or high skilled, or have advancement opportunities, but people working those jobs deserve a living wage. Companies who hire those workers should not rely on taxpayers to subsidize their workforce with snap or housing assistance or Medicaid because the wages And benefits are so low.

Remember the comment on a different thread about price of goods purchased should reflect their actual cost.

One of the reason stuff at big box stores is so cheap is because a large portion of the workforce is subsidized by tax payers through snap, Medicaid, etc. Cost of business s is pushed on to taxpayers rather than included in the retail price.

[RPlant]

One of the reason stuff at big box stores is so cheap is because a large portion of the workforce is subsidized by tax payers through snap, Medicaid, etc. Cost of business s is pushed on to taxpayers rather than included in the retail price.

Amen!
Forbes: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
https://www.healthnutnews.com/report-wa ... ssistance/
Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”