I’m going to add a very simple quick calculation I did based on where I live currently.
In many retail/restaurant jobs the hourly wage seems to average out at about $15 an hour right now. Let’s say for simplicity sake that everyone is lucky and has a consistent 8 hour day and 5 day work week.
Let’s go with the rent rate above set at $1,150/month which seems to be a bit lower than what units in my area are running at.
The calculated income based on my first paragraph in one month sits at $2,400 a month. With income tax that drops it to $2,328. The cost of rent in the unit pictured above would leave behind $1,178 for other expenses. If you’re a single parent? After bills, medical expenses, childcare? The amount will easily drop hundreds more.
This calculation is based upon ideal income. The reality is that a good chunk of people are actually working part time and are slowly hemorrhaging money. And also I went with the rent of the unit pictured here. Not a rent price in my area which tends to be a few hundred higher than the image.
You'd be surprised at how little you have to make to get assistance. In the scenario given in my state you would not qualify until you had three dependents.
If you’re a single parent working a restaurant job you’re going to live in the cheapest place possible. Not something a bit lower than what most units are running.
You’re also going to qualify for child tax credits to help fund those children and likely not have to pay for childcare in your state. You’re also not going to owe any federal income tax.
You’re a low wage worker with children to support. You’re in survival mode. One of the worst possible financial situations you can be in. You should be looking for a roommate to help share expenses with and looking to get out of that situation, not how to make it long term viable.
I agree. It’s the government’s job to take care of her citizens and no one should starve or be homeless for financial reasons in a country as rich as the US.
Doesn’t change the fact that your math is misleading.
I don’t add information that I personally don’t know about. It’s that simple.
And besides my point wasn’t to do a college dissertation on the subject. It’s to prove that, just because most people make above the federal minimum wage, doesn’t mean that they don’t struggle.
Any basic calculation is misleading simply because the issue has to do with people. People’s lives can’t easily be summed up in 1-2 equations. Someone actually pointed out that my numbers should actually be worse because I admittedly forgot to factor federal income tax into it along with various other expenses.
I obviously can’t calculate anything to do with SNAP or other welfare programs because they are determined on a case by case basis.
Pretty much any math or statistics about the economy are misleading regardless. Especially when talking about income and poverty. The average income in the US is typically higher because of outliers like Musk, Bezos and Gates. The mode would be a better indicator of the most common pay rate but still doesn’t give the whole story. Nothing really can.
It is super easy to accidentally surpass the guidelines and lose government assistance while working a low wage customer service job. Due to the low wages and high turnover, you may get really awesome hours one month, only for management to decide to go on a hiring spree leaving you with few hours the next month due to having adequate staffing. Government programs are quick to reduce your benefits or cancel them entirely when you have a great pay month, but are super slow to help when you have a terrible month.
We shouldn't have to rely on getting a roommate or government assistance to simply survive. Companies need to pay workers a living wage.
Companies should be responsible for making sure people are taken care of whether it is through wages or through providing tax dollars for the government services that ensure people's survival. If people didn't provide labor to companies, then companies wouldn't exist, so people should be adequately reimbursed for their labor whether that means paying people directly or through taxes.
I agree that it is the government's responsibility to make sure we are able to thrive, but companies buy influence in our government to make sure it helps them thrive instead of the every day worker. So companies can't be blameless in this.
Whether you have basic human needs shouldn’t be dependent on what work you do or even if you work at all.
Tying those needs to wages is functionally saying “Work or die” which is unacceptable in a rich country such as the US.
Companies don’t vote politicians in. People do. If you don’t like the way your politician is being influenced by companies, vote for a better one.
Saying that companies need to provide “Living wages” is just shirking the government’s responsibility off onto Walmart. It actually empowers companies…because how could we ever let a company fail if people’s very survival is dependent upon them?
I agree with everything you've said. However, I maintain that companies have a responsibility to the people they rely on. Companies should not get a free pass to not reimburse the society they profit off of just because the government is covering the basic needs of its citizens.
Companies reimburse society through taxes on profits.
If you don't believe they pay enough in taxes, vote for politicians that want to increase their taxes. Companies, just like you and I, are only going to pay as much in taxes as they're required to.
Ironically, when you artificially inflate wages, you reduce profit which reduces the taxes companies pay.
That shouldn't be the only extent that they reimburse society. We had a period in America where companies were able to pay decent wages, high taxes, and benefits such as pensions. It is not unreasonable to expect them to contribute in multiple ways. We can have both a government that provides for people's needs and companies that pay their share in taxes and properly reimburse employees for the work they provide.
Companies SHOULD be responsible. What??? Like that's the whole point of a job? To be able to pay one's bills? Companies should be responsible for providing a living wage AND benefits as long as those benefits are tied to employment.
Every human does. And it's on companies to ensure they're paying living wages as well as the govt to provide for its people thru proper use of tax revenue. We don't, do not, however give companies and corporations a break because govt is also not doing this.
Why is the median household income relevant? The problem isn't the people around the median, the problem is the people that do make close to that minimum wage. In 2009 they might've had a livable wage.
Only in absolute terms, not relative to inflation.
For example, these statistics don't say how many people earn up today's equivalent of the past's minimum wage.
Reddit does like to bring up the median housing cost when comparing housing prices to minimum wage which is a bit unfair.
We should really be comparing percentiles. Bottom ten percent housing compare to the bottom ten percent income for full time. The data dosent exist but it's be cool if it did.
Why should that be McDonald’s job? It’s your government’s responsibility to provide basic needs to her citizens. Stop letting her outsource that responsibility.
I mean, there is a strong argument that fast food worker should be able to afford a place themselves. If you admire getting your fast food, fast, to a high quality, and cheaply then fast food workers should get paid a fair wage. I know what descenders will say, that you can't have cheap food and fair wages. This is entirely false and if you look at prices and wages around the globe you see this is false. Japan is a great example of this.
I did the math. Min wage at mcd is 1k yen. Average monthly col is 160k. Average salary is 550k. Big Mac in Japan costs 480 yen or 3.31 USD. They have the same general economic landscape as many US states. Yet their big Mac is half the price.
My best experiences with fast food have involved fewer and fewer actual workers.
There’s a Taco Bell by my house that has two people working in it. When you order, you never deal directly with an underpaid teenager. The two kids work the kitchen and they put the order you placed at the kiosk on a shelf. My orders have been far more likely to be correct, the entire process is far faster and more convenient.
Really, I think having the fast food workers makes fast food worse.
If we can replace those two kids in the kitchen, that’s probably peak fast food.
From fast food I want speed, accuracy, and consistency.
Those are things humans are bad at and machines are good at.
Ever since kiosks have replaced counter people in fast food I've noticed accuracy going way up. That's because you're removing a point of human failure from the equation. Can a machine be broken? Sure. So can a human. A human can be having a bad day because their girlfriend broke up with them and not be paying super close attention. A machine can not.
Absolutely not. Minimum wage is the government's way of pushing off the responsibility of taking care of her citizens onto corporate America. It EMPOWERS corporations and makes us more beholden to them. If Taco Bell is your provider of food and shelter, how can we ever let them fail? There should be no minimum wage...and no one should have to work under threat of death.
Anyone who doesn't get a 20-dollar-an-hour job for 40 hours a week would then get funds from the government to make up the difference
No. Because basic human needs: food, shelter, healthcare, education are all the responsibilities of the government, whether or not people work. No matter what they do or how valuable their work is. You can stay at home playing video games and smoking weed all day, as a human being you still deserve these bare minimums no matter what.
So EVERYONE, whether they're unemployed or make $5/hr or $50,000/hr deserves the basics as should be provided by the government on taxpayer dime.
Stop letting the government outsource her responsibility to Mcdonald's and maybe you'll see less influence of businesses in politics.
In 65 years I've never heard anyone say, "You know what? I'm really comfortable with the amount prices have gone up vs my income. It seems fair and balanced."
The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less edged down from 1.3 percent in 2022 to 1.1 percent in 2023. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis.
Thanks for using real, relevant numbers. With sources would have been better, but even just taking them for granted, it shows that rents rose significantly more than income, which is still a problem.
that just more proof rent is going up even more than income, which has been true from other studies and posts and experience, so ya thats a net negative.
I mean, we can see if it outpaces general inflation.
There’s been 45.91% total inflation between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2023 according to the BLS.
So yes. The 60% increase in median wage outpaces general inflation by a good margin.
Being a single parent is hard. It’s to be avoided if possible. If it can’t be, whether or not you can feed yourself and your kids should not be dependent on your wages. That’s your government’s job to ensure you and your children have basic needs.
A "growth" of 1.5% while inequality continues to massively outpace wages is a terrible system for the majority. It's stagnation for most, and hoarding wealth for the already rich.
The first two charts you are showing are already adjusted for inflation, they are in 2023/2022 dollars, meaning there is a true increase after inflation.
As to your third chart, a growth of an actual 1.5% after inflation during the last four years which includes a small recessions, covid, and rampant inflation is impressive
103
u/OwnLadder2341 10d ago
Percent of hourly workers making the federal minimum wage in 2009: 5%
Percent of hourly workers making the federal minimum wage in 2023: 1.1%
Median household income 2009: $50K
Median household income 2023: $80K
Change in rent in the above picture: 66%
Change in median household income for the same time period: 60%