Second stimulus check

[katilac]

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Where are you getting $63,000?  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary earners in the US is $1002 (which is 10.4% higher than last year).  

Census.gov: "Real median household income in the United States increased 0.8% to $61,937 between 2017 and 2018."

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think a more targeted approach could have been implemented just as quickly.  In fact, the way things were handled caused disasters for some people.  States were flooded with unemployment claims--more than their systems could handle and their computer systems were not set up to handle the process.  That caused many people not to be able to even apply or get into the system for weeks; those individuals were getting nothing--nothing to pay rent and nothing to buy groceries.  

I certainly can't argue with the fact that systems were overwhelmed. You may well be right that a more targeted approach would have worked better overall. 

2 hours ago, amyx4 said:

I know a teen who got fired from his job in mid-February. He's collecting the $600. His parents told me about the $600. (He was fired because he was late a million times to work)  His parents have not lost a single day of work from their very well paying jobs. 

My teens swear a friend of theirs quit his job and was able to get the $600. 

Then they are both committing fraud and lying on government documents. They may get away with it, a certain number of people generally do, but it is a dangerous game to play. 

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

This is a challenge because some "dependents" are actually self supporting now.  Payments can go off 2019 or 2018 taxes.  In early 2018, my "child" was living in dorms, with a meal plan his parents paid for, and had virtually no bills.  Come Covid, spring 2020, the same kid, claimed as a dependent for the previous year, is now 21, living in an apartment with a car, has bills to pay and because college food service closed, the meal plan we paid for is useless.  Now, granted, he works for a pizza place, so they were busier than ever.  However, YES, dependents NEED to qualify for unemployment benefits.  I can't fathom us absorbing his rent, his utilities, his car payment!  

I think this is confusing two things.  Unemployment benefits are tied to an individual person's work and pay history.  They are not tied to whether someone is a dependent, married, any income, or past tax returns.  Unemployment benefits are state programs which each state administers.  The stimulus checks were tied to 2018 and 2019 tax returns and, unfortunately, left many in the group that you are describing completely out because they were dependents over the age of 17 (I think that was the cut off) in 2018. 

[Bootsie]

12 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

 

This intrigues me. Would you be willing to lay out your ideal targeted approach? I know we can't turn back time, but I haven't been able to really think of a way that doesn't exclude some faction that needs the extra help without encompassing some more fortunates. This last part where you say the safety net didn't do enough for some piques my interest, and I'd be interested to know if the "enough" you aim for is all monetary or other support systems as well. 

I don't have a well-thought out, complete, targeted approach right off the top of my head, but some things I would consider are:

1)  Have a graduated payment.  A teen who was working 5 hours a week, making $45, and is now unemployed should not be getting the same amount as full-time employee who was making $1000 per week, and is now unemployed.  

2) Build in something that covers those who are still working, but working at reduced hours and reduced pay.  The full-time employee who was making $1000 per week, and had hours reduced by 20% or pay cut by 20% is making less than those not working.  

3)  Unemployment programs are state-run.  Each state had its own rules for who qualifies.  The federal government came in and "added" to that, but did not provide for the administrative nightmare that caused for state agencies.  At first the federal program was not clearly laid out; the federal government could have either administered its own program; provided resources to the states to help their swamped unemployment agencies; or given the money to states to administer through their existing unemployment benefits programs as they saw fit.  Since each state had its own program, a one-size-fits-all overlay made little sense.  

4)  Have a program that is phased out rather than a fixed, hard end date.

 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

Census.gov: "Real median household income in the United States increased 0.8% to $61,937 between 2017 and 2018."

I certainly can't argue with the fact that systems were overwhelmed. You may well be right that a more targeted approach would have worked better overall. 

Then they are both committing fraud and lying on government documents. They may get away with it, a certain number of people generally do, but it is a dangerous game to play. 

Real median household income is different than average wages and income of workers.  First, household income can include the income of more than one worker.  Second, household income includes non-earned income.  

[elegantlion]

16 hours ago, SereneHome said:

"Living wage" is such an abstract number and is very subjective.

Yeah, $22/hour here gets you a pretty decent lifestyle. Rents are lower, housing prices are lower. I just looked, that's about the median income for our county. We are definitely low cost of living area.  

[Moonhawk]

4 hours ago, SereneHome said:

No, I absolutely don't think you are heartless, not do I think you are hoping for business closures.  Of course not! You seem to be a kind and compassionate person and you have nothing to apologize for.  But I come from a different perspective on this topic and comments like that give me a certain reaction.

I haven't been on these boards long enough, but I would venture a guess that conversation about "living wages" have been done more than once. But I was born in a country that wanted everyone to have everything they needed and it doesn't work. As I mentioned in a post in this thread, "living wage" is not a real number, it's a subjective term. Not all jobs can or should pay a "living wage" bc not all jobs created equal. And I not talking about doctor vs janitor. I am talking about jobs that were never meant as "support your family" type of jobs.

Over the past 5 yrs I have done tax returns and book keeping for small / mid size business, most of them service type businesses. There is no way most of them can pay $50K/yr as a starting salary to their employees.  Sure, if it's a restaurant or salon, there are tips involved. But otherwise?  It's not that simple. Then there is manufacturing. If you ever watch Shark Tank time and time again entrepreneurs are saying that they have to make things in China, otherwise, their business can't survive, it's too expensive to produce thins in US, in terms of costs, including salaries.

Anyway.....I know you are coming from a place of worry I just think that we have different ideas on how to handle this worry.

 

 

I appreciate the understanding.

So, I actually have no idea how to handle the working poverty issue / living wage. And I completely agree that it is not simple, at all. And yeah, it's probably been done to death on the boards. So anyone who rolls their eyes at another iteration of the conversation should probably skip over the rest of what I'm saying, for your ophthalmologist's sake.

But now that you've got me talking 😉  

I think the term "living wage" is a bit of a red herring that is distracting us with its subjectivity. 

So let's just consider a survival wage, how about, since the word "living" seems to have more subjectivity to it. It will still fluctuate from different areas, but we can pare down what we expect as a standard and is more clear about what we're actual talking about -- survival. Because right now many are not surviving on their wage.

You say not all jobs are created equal, but all people are, and saying that someone working 40 hours a week shouldn't/doesn't deserve a wage they can survive on smacks of a system gone wrong (ftr, you didn't say this, I am extrapolating now). One can say that this particular business *can't* pay a survival wage (then we go back to is this business at the stage where they can actually afford workers), but I don't think we would say that a full-time job *shouldn't* pay a survival wage. And if we are saying on average our economy/society *can't* pay a survival wage, then that just shows there is an even bigger problem with the system, not that it *shouldn't* be done.

I think we all agree that as a society/country we COULD do something. And not a "everyone have everything" type of something, but we could probably pull off "everything they needed". At least so that someone working 40 hours (or the dreaded 32 hours employers do to avoid having to pay extra costs) is be able to afford basic necessities at least for themselves (I do think they should be able to afford more, but let's find starting principles).

Right now, this isn't happening for many. 

We are Americans, the great innovators, the pioneers, the entrepreneurs, why is the box we are told to think in so small and the goal of a survivable wage made out as so impossible? 

[SereneHome]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I appreciate the understanding.

So, I actually have no idea how to handle the working poverty issue / living wage. And I completely agree that it is not simple, at all. And yeah, it's probably been done to death on the boards. So anyone who rolls their eyes at another iteration of the conversation should probably skip over the rest of what I'm saying, for your ophthalmologist's sake.

But now that you've got me talking 😉  

I think the term "living wage" is a bit of a red herring that is distracting us with its subjectivity. 

So let's just consider a survival wage, how about, since the word "living" seems to have more subjectivity to it. It will still fluctuate from different areas, but we can pare down what we expect as a standard and is more clear about what we're actual talking about -- survival. Because right now many are not surviving on their wage.

You say not all jobs are created equal, but all people are, and saying that someone working 40 hours a week shouldn't/doesn't deserve a wage they can survive on smacks of a system gone wrong (ftr, you didn't say this, I am extrapolating now). One can say that this particular business *can't* pay a survival wage (then we go back to is this business at the stage where they can actually afford workers), but I don't think we would say that a full-time job *shouldn't* pay a survival wage. And if we are saying on average our economy/society *can't* pay a survival wage, then that just shows there is an even bigger problem with the system, not that it *shouldn't* be done.

I think we all agree that as a society/country we COULD do something. And not a "everyone have everything" type of something, but we could probably pull off "everything they needed". At least so that someone working 40 hours (or the dreaded 32 hours employers do to avoid having to pay extra costs) is be able to afford basic necessities at least for themselves (I do think they should be able to afford more, but let's find starting principles).

Right now, this isn't happening for many. 

We are Americans, the great innovators, the pioneers, the entrepreneurs, why is the box we are told to think in so small and the goal of a survivable wage made out as so impossible? 

First, bc we are not having a conversation where we can hear either other or see each other, I want to say that please know that my post is done in a conversational, let's have a good, thought provoking dialogue tone.

Can I throw another term instead of "living" or "surviving".  How about "supportive" wage. So Idea is - a person working 40 hrs/wk should be able to support themselves on whatever they are earning. Let's pretend it $45K gross, about $36K take home (very conservative numbers)

OK, but how many people should that person be able to support? Just himself? Himself and a spouse? Himself and a child? etc etc. Bc that's, of course, makes a huge difference.

Then, let's say they can support themselves and a family. But what about providing healthcare for that family? Should every job provide healthcare? Bc that hugely increases cost to the employer.

Then, let's say, they can support themselves in Sweet Home Alabama on that $45K. But let's face it, they move to Boston or even Baltimore, that $45K.....yep, now they are living in ghetto (ask me how I know)

You see where I am going? And I haven't even started on costs of food, childcare, transportation, education, etc etc

Also, while you say people are created equal, when it comes to jobs and skills they are not.

When I talk budgets with clients, yes, increasing income is huge but so is decreasing expenses. So....I am thinking, instead of  keep advocating for increased wages, why aren't we advocating for decreased costs? On both, personal and govt level.

[TCB]

On 7/26/2020 at 10:32 AM, Carrie12345 said:

I’ve been wondering about how this is actually handled by employers.
Our garbage company put out a notice about their deteriorating service (which has always had problems pre-COVID), placing part of the blame on employees not returning to work because of extra unemployment. I was under the impression that, if their job was available, they couldn’t collect.

I think that is true, but I heard locally that many employers are reluctant to inform on those employees because they then cause serious headaches for the boss when forced to go back to work. It is a serious issue around here. I know of a number of businesses who have not even been able to re-open because so many of their employees wouldn’t go back to work and nobody was applying for the jobs. 

[TCB]

16 minutes ago, TCB said:

I think that is true, but I heard locally that many employers are reluctant to inform on those employees because they then cause serious headaches for the boss when forced to go back to work. It is a serious issue around here. I know of a number of businesses who have not even been able to re-open because so many of their employees wouldn’t go back to work and nobody was applying for the jobs. 

I get that it is hard to turn down the money, but what about later when you have no job, and the business has gone because it couldn’t re-open without employees? It seems short sighted to me.

[Moonhawk]

3 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

First, bc we are not having a conversation where we can hear either other or see each other, I want to say that please know that my post is done in a conversational, let's have a good, thought provoking dialogue tone.

Can I throw another term instead of "living" or "surviving".  How about "supportive" wage. So Idea is - a person working 40 hrs/wk should be able to support themselves on whatever they are earning. Let's pretend it $45K gross, about $36K take home (very conservative numbers)

OK, but how many people should that person be able to support? Just himself? Himself and a spouse? Himself and a child? etc etc. Bc that's, of course, makes a huge difference.

Then, let's say they can support themselves and a family. But what about providing healthcare for that family? Should every job provide healthcare? Bc that hugely increases cost to the employer.

Then, let's say, they can support themselves in Sweet Home Alabama on that $45K. But let's face it, they move to Boston or even Baltimore, that $45K.....yep, now they are living in ghetto (ask me how I know)

You see where I am going? And I haven't even started on costs of food, childcare, transportation, education, etc etc

Also, while you say people are created equal, when it comes to jobs and skills they are not.

When I talk budgets with clients, yes, increasing income is huge but so is decreasing expenses. So....I am thinking, instead of  keep advocating for increased wages, why aren't we advocating for decreased costs? On both, personal and govt level.

Conversational tone read, understood. I'm continuing in the same.

"Supportive" is fine, I think, even broader than what I was saying.

For the sake of the argument I was making, I was saying support only themselves with their earnings. To be more specific on what I was originally intending with survival: more than housing + food, because real necessities like transportation, utilities. I'd personally include insurances (incl emergency medical), and security deposits. We expect people to supply all of this to be considered stable (or at least not transient), and I didn't include anything about kids or non-emergency medical or dentists or pets. Or tables or mattresses or maybe saving for an emergency fund for when you get ulcers from the stress and need surgery. I think the term supportive would cover more than survival, but I'm okay with that.

As for healthcare, regardless for one person or a family: either way, on the supportive wage solution, the employer is going to pay, either because they are paying enough for the employee to buy it, or because they are providing it pre-wage. This is where I would say society could step in to make a supportive wage more viable: by providing medical coverage at a federal level we would reduce the number required to meet a supportive wage, allowing businesses lower overhead to operate.

This leads into your decreased costs idea, which I completely and totally advocate for. Both for the person, the business, and we would hope government as well. 

And, yes, there is still the fluctuation of what the number actually *is* depending on location. I hadn't really touched it, just acknowledged it. I don't feel the need to put a number on that yet, since I feel like we are still trying to agree on principles, what should be, and once we agree on that I'd be more open to figuring out what it looks like in action. If you like, though, we can use your numbers, sure. 

People are created equal, job skills and their value are not. Agreed. That is why I'm not advocating that everyone is paid the same amount, that everyone needs to live in the Hamptons or that everyone needs to live in an averaged living situation. I am only saying that a person working what society deems to be full time should be able to support themselves.

And I'll apologize, a lot of the issues you brought up I had in a first draft but then deleted because the length was such that I probably wouldn't even have read it, lol. They are all real problems.  I'm not trying to minimize that at all. I just see them as problems with solutions we haven't found yet. 

I could throw out crazy ideas like a federal minimum wage that scales with local housing costs. Or caps on how much you can charge for housing based off the average income for a zip code. Note I said crazy, but these are more PO ideas to get us thinking out the box. I didn't want to include this, though, because these are easy targets to tear to pieces and then ignore the grander scheme of what I'm saying.

[SereneHome]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Conversational tone read, understood. I'm continuing in the same.

"Supportive" is fine, I think, even broader than what I was saying.

For the sake of the argument I was making, I was saying support only themselves with their earnings. To be more specific on what I was originally intending with survival: more than housing + food, because real necessities like transportation, utilities. I'd personally include insurances (incl emergency medical), and security deposits. We expect people to supply all of this to be considered stable (or at least not transient), and I didn't include anything about kids or non-emergency medical or dentists or pets. Or tables or mattresses or maybe saving for an emergency fund for when you get ulcers from the stress and need surgery. I think the term supportive would cover more than survival, but I'm okay with that.

As for healthcare, regardless for one person or a family: either way, on the supportive wage solution, the employer is going to pay, either because they are paying enough for the employee to buy it, or because they are providing it pre-wage. This is where I would say society could step in to make a supportive wage more viable: by providing medical coverage at a federal level we would reduce the number required to meet a supportive wage, allowing businesses lower overhead to operate.

This leads into your decreased costs idea, which I completely and totally advocate for. Both for the person, the business, and we would hope government as well. 

And, yes, there is still the fluctuation of what the number actually *is* depending on location. I hadn't really touched it, just acknowledged it. I don't feel the need to put a number on that yet, since I feel like we are still trying to agree on principles, what should be, and once we agree on that I'd be more open to figuring out what it looks like in action. If you like, though, we can use your numbers, sure. 

People are created equal, job skills and their value are not. Agreed. That is why I'm not advocating that everyone is paid the same amount, that everyone needs to live in the Hamptons or that everyone needs to live in an averaged living situation. I am only saying that a person working what society deems to be full time should be able to support themselves.

And I'll apologize, a lot of the issues you brought up I had in a first draft but then deleted because the length was such that I probably wouldn't even have read it, lol. They are all real problems.  I'm not trying to minimize that at all. I just see them as problems with solutions we haven't found yet. 

I could throw out crazy ideas like a federal minimum wage that scales with local housing costs. Or caps on how much you can charge for housing based off the average income for a zip code. Note I said crazy, but these are more PO ideas to get us thinking out the box. I didn't want to include this, though, because these are easy targets to tear to pieces and then ignore the grander scheme of what I'm saying.

I will read in more detail later, but just wanted to quickly say to the high lighted - based on my experience, there are many jobs where a person can support themselves working FT. Do you see it differently?

 

[Moonhawk]

9 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I will read in more detail later, but just wanted to quickly say to the high lighted - based on my experience, there are many jobs where a person can support themselves working FT. Do you see it differently?

 

There are many jobs where a person can support themselves working full time, yes.

There are many jobs that are full time at minimum wage, and that is not enough to support themselves in their given location. Also, the 32-hr work situation. IDK if you want to consider that or not.  I'd say probably my impression and what I'd originally, way back when, been conceiving did have to do with 1 parent +kid, but I think you could find people who are single, full time minimum wage, unable to fully support themselves, receiving help from family or government or charitable institutions. 

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Moonhawk

[SereneHome]

Just now, Moonhawk said:

There are many jobs where a person can support themselves working full time, yes.

There are many jobs that are full time at minimum wage, and that is not enough to support themselves in their given location. Also, the 32-hr work situation. IDK if you want to consider that or not.  I'd say probably my impression and what I'd originally, way back when, been conceiving did have to do with 1 parent +kid, but I think you could find people who are single, full time minimum wage, unable to fully support themselves. 

 

OK, so what jobs pay min wage? And it goes back to what I was saying earlier - I don't think that all jobs, even at FT meant to be a supporting-a-person jobs.

[Moonhawk]

6 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

OK, so what jobs pay min wage? And it goes back to what I was saying earlier - I don't think that all jobs, even at FT meant to be a supporting-a-person jobs.

 

And here we have our differing starting principle: if we cannot agree that working full time should allow you to support yourself, at least yourself, then I think we have an impasse. 

OOC, would changing the word back to "survive" make any difference? (And I would mean survive without government assistance or charity. Frugality and no steak is okay. We could perhaps discuss minimal government assistance, but I see that as then the government subsidizing the employer, not just the person. edit, let's not overcomplicate things yet, lol)

Edited July 27, 2020 by Moonhawk

[SereneHome]

Just now, Moonhawk said:

 

And here we have our differing starting principle: if we cannot agree that working full time should allow you to support yourself, at least yourself, then I think we have an impasse. 

OOC, would changing the word back to "survive" make any difference? (And I would mean survive without government assistance or charity. Frugality and no steak is okay. We could perhaps discuss minimal government assistance, but I see that as then the government subsidizing the employer, not just the person.)

So I wonder if we are thinking different things....for example, the stereotypical "flipping the burgers" job. Was it really meant as a FT adult job or was it meant as a supplemental income for a teenager? That's what I am referring to when I say "not all jobs are meant to support yourself". Bc if we think that "flipping the burgers" job should pay $45K/yr......how realistic it really is? Thoughts?

[Moonhawk]

1 minute ago, SereneHome said:

So I wonder if we are thinking different things....for example, the stereotypical "flipping the burgers" job. Was it really meant as a FT adult job or was it meant as a supplemental income for a teenager? That's what I am referring to when I say "not all jobs are meant to support yourself". Bc if we think that "flipping the burgers" job should pay $45K/yr......how realistic it really is? Thoughts?

Okay, i do see what you are saying. Yeah, I am not saying flipping burgers should be $45k/yr (more from an inflation standpoint, it would be a temporary solution anyway), as much as I am saying that one should be able to afford their basic necessities on whatever they are making if they are working full time. IE if the job pays $26k/yr, you should be able to live on it. I can see how this sounds inconsistent, but there's a thought here that I'm still trying to get at and I'm not able to articulate yet.

I was brought up being told that only teenagers should be working flipping burgers. And that adults got "real jobs." Now that I am an adult, though, the majority of people I see working these jobs are adults also. And there aren't other jobs available, at least in my area. Is this a change? Has our society changed and have our job views reflected that? Should we still consider some jobs "kids only"? Do we need to shift away from this expectation? Or, if we as a society decide this is still true, are we willing to have government support for those adults who do not age out of these jobs? If not, what are we willing to allow in terms of our fellow man's situation? 

So maybe what we are discussing is underemployment and the problems that come from that. 

And, I do have some weird preconceptions around the idea of "productive member of society." That I don't think are exactly true. Where our worth as a person and what we deserve (ie, being able to survive) is tied to our job. Which is the reality of things in a way, but I don't think acknowledges the full picture. 

Still not articulating it. And my kids just informed me that they are starting an ice cream business?? And need to use my ice cream machine?? And a loan?? So I need to see what has happened in this house since I've been on the board all morning, lol. So can't really finish the thought right now, hopefully later, assuming that the ice cream business goes smoothly. 

[SereneHome]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Okay, i do see what you are saying. Yeah, I am not saying flipping burgers should be $45k/yr (more from an inflation standpoint, it would be a temporary solution anyway), as much as I am saying that one should be able to afford their basic necessities on whatever they are making if they are working full time. IE if the job pays $26k/yr, you should be able to live on it. I can see how this sounds inconsistent, but there's a thought here that I'm still trying to get at and I'm not able to articulate yet.

I was brought up being told that only teenagers should be working flipping burgers. And that adults got "real jobs." Now that I am an adult, though, the majority of people I see working these jobs are adults also. And there aren't other jobs available, at least in my area. Is this a change? Has our society changed and have our job views reflected that? Should we still consider some jobs "kids only"? Do we need to shift away from this expectation? Or, if we as a society decide this is still true, are we willing to have government support for those adults who do not age out of these jobs? If not, what are we willing to allow in terms of our fellow man's situation? 

So maybe what we are discussing is underemployment and the problems that come from that. 

And, I do have some weird preconceptions around the idea of "productive member of society." That I don't think are exactly true. Where our worth as a person and what we deserve (ie, being able to survive) is tied to our job. Which is the reality of things in a way, but I don't think acknowledges the full picture. 

Still not articulating it. And my kids just informed me that they are starting an ice cream business?? And need to use my ice cream machine?? And a loan?? So I need to see what has happened in this house since I've been on the board all morning, lol. So can't really finish the thought right now, hopefully later, assuming that the ice cream business goes smoothly. 

I hope your investment in ice cream business goes splendidly well 🙂

 

[HeartString]

I’m not understanding where $22/hour came from.  Nationally what I’m seeing is the “Fight for $15”, which at full time is $30,600.  They are “fighting for $15” because they make less than that. These aren’t all burger flipping jobs either, managers at fast food or grocery stores often make less than $15. 

[SereneHome]

30 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

I’m not understanding where $22/hour came from.  Nationally what I’m seeing is the “Fight for $15”, which at full time is $30,600.  They are “fighting for $15” because they make less than that. These aren’t all burger flipping jobs either, managers at fast food or grocery stores often make less than $15. 

I am curious where you live. A friend of mine is a grocery  store department manager, he is making six figures plus bonus.  He was making that much in MA and now is in VA.

$22/hr came from someone mentioning that that's what some people are getting now on UE bc of increased amounts. Someone else mentioned that $22/hr is not that much. And then conversation started....

[HeartString]

48 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

m curious where you live. A friend of mine is a grocery  store department manager, he is making six figures plus bonus.  He was making that much in MA and now is in VA.

$22/hr came from someone mentioning that that's what some people are getting now on UE bc of increased amounts. Someone else mentioned that $22/hr is not that much. And then conversation started....

Wow, I want to know what store that is where a department manager makes 6 figures.  I cashiered for extra money a few years ago and no one was bringing in that sort of money except maybe the main store manager.  Definitely not the manager of a single department.  I doubt a typical Walmart has very many people making 6 figures in any one store.  

 
I found this for McDs showing managers make $9- $15 with an average of $11 and a bit. Probably not the store manager or the corporate level, but the day manager, night manager, ordering manager. 
 

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=McDonald's_Corporation/Hourly_Rate

 

[mommyoffive]

2 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

Wow, I want to know what store that is where a department manager makes 6 figures.  I cashiered for extra money a few years ago and no one was bringing in that sort of money except maybe the main store manager.  Definitely not the manager of a single department.  I doubt a typical Walmart has very many people making 6 figures in any one store.  

 
I found this for McDs showing managers make $9- $15 with an average of $11 and a bit. Probably not the store manager or the corporate level, but the day manager, night manager, ordering manager. 
 

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=McDonald's_Corporation/Hourly_Rate

 

I think I have read the managers at Walmart make 6 figures.    But not sure what level that would be .  Store manager probably, I don't know about shift managers.

[HeartString]

I was looking at Walmart on payscale.com. It looks like most department level manager make around $20, but with ranges from $12 to $25.  

 

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Walmart.com/Hourly_Rate

[katilac]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Real median household income is different than average wages and income of workers.   

Oh, sorry if I answered with household income when you said worker income, I'm looking at too many things. 

2 hours ago, TCB said:

I get that it is hard to turn down the money, but what about later when you have no job, and the business has gone because it couldn’t re-open without employees? It seems short sighted to me.

Right. And some people are short sighted, sure, but I hope the number is limited. 

 

2 hours ago, SereneHome said:

So I wonder if we are thinking different things....for example, the stereotypical "flipping the burgers" job. Was it really meant as a FT adult job or was it meant as a supplemental income for a teenager? That's what I am referring to when I say "not all jobs are meant to support yourself". Bc if we think that "flipping the burgers" job should pay $45K/yr......how realistic it really is? Thoughts?

 

I don't see how the idea of certain jobs being meant only as supplemental income for teens, because somebody has to be working them while teens are in school. I worked fast food in the 1980s, and there were always a certain number of adults in the core workforce (not just managers). 

I know that the number $45k came under discussion in this thread, but when most people talk about a living wage, they are referencing the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr or $15,000 a year (if you manage to get full-time hours). That's a third of the $45k figure, so definitely two different discussions. 

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, katilac said:

I don't see how the idea of certain jobs being meant only as supplemental income for teens, because somebody has to be working them while teens are in school. I worked fast food in the 1980s, and there were always a certain number of adults in the core workforce (not just managers). 

I know that the number $45k came under discussion in this thread, but when most people talk about a living wage, they are referencing the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr or $15,000 a year (if you manage to get full-time hours). That's a third of the $45k figure, so definitely two different discussions. 

Everyone I talk to who uses the term "living wage" is talking about what they think a minimum wage should be-- based upon their idea of how much they think it would cost a person to "live" (or perhaps that person and a spouse or children to live) and then dividing that by the number of hours they think a reasonable work week to get what they think is a "living wage".  I have never seen anyone refer to the current federal minimum wage as a "living wage".  

[katilac]

15 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Everyone I talk to who uses the term "living wage" is talking about what they think a minimum wage should be-- based upon their idea of how much they think it would cost a person to "live" (or perhaps that person and a spouse or children to live) and then dividing that by the number of hours they think a reasonable work week to get what they think is a "living wage".  I have never seen anyone refer to the current federal minimum wage as a "living wage".  

My writing skills must be off today, because that's exactly the point I intended to make, lol. The current federal minimum wage is not remotely close to a living wage, but it is supposed to be. 

[Bootsie]

5 minutes ago, katilac said:

My writing skills must be off today, because that's exactly the point I intended to make, lol. The current federal minimum wage is not remotely close to a living wage, but it is supposed to be. 

Why are you assuming that it is supposed to be?  

[SereneHome]

3 hours ago, katilac said:

Oh, sorry if I answered with household income when you said worker income, I'm looking at too many things. 

Right. And some people are short sighted, sure, but I hope the number is limited. 

 

 

I don't see how the idea of certain jobs being meant only as supplemental income for teens, because somebody has to be working them while teens are in school. I worked fast food in the 1980s, and there were always a certain number of adults in the core workforce (not just managers). 

I know that the number $45k came under discussion in this thread, but when most people talk about a living wage, they are referencing the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr or $15,000 a year (if you manage to get full-time hours). That's a third of the $45k figure, so definitely two different discussions. 

Yes, of course. But it's not just teenagers, it's whoever needs a supplemental income, not *the only* income.

 

[katilac]

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Why are you assuming that it is supposed to be?  

That's what I was always taught in history class. 

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees."  Cornell Law

"The bill provided for minimum-wage boards which would determine, after public hearing and consideration of cost-of-living figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whether wages in particular industries were below subsistence levels." Straight from the Department of Labor

 Just for fun: 

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry." That's FDR, but change the numbers and it sounds like current discussions. Quote on DoL site.  

[Bootsie]

23 minutes ago, katilac said:

That's what I was always taught in history class. 

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees."  Cornell Law

"The bill provided for minimum-wage boards which would determine, after public hearing and consideration of cost-of-living figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whether wages in particular industries were below subsistence levels." Straight from the Department of Labor

 Just for fun: 

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry." That's FDR, but change the numbers and it sounds like current discussions. Quote on DoL site.  

The quote by the Department of Labor is about a version of the bill-the Black-Connery Bill provided for this, but it was not adopted this way in the final legislation. 

The original Fair Labor Standards Act only covered about 20% of workers.  So, I have a hard time seeing how the intent was to make sure that every job had a wage that enabled a particular standard of living of a particular number of family members.  

[katilac]

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The quote by the Department of Labor is about a version of the bill-the Black-Connery Bill provided for this, but it was not adopted this way in the final legislation. 

The original Fair Labor Standards Act only covered about 20% of workers.  So, I have a hard time seeing how the intent was to make sure that every job had a wage that enabled a particular standard of living of a particular number of family members.  

It was not adopted in that form, but that was the intent. They didn't get everything they wanted, but they got some of the things for some of the people. I don't think the fact that they had to negotiate and compromise in order to get something past alters the intent, it's just what they were able to do. 

[katilac]

19 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

I don't see how those figures for McDonalds could be true because I've worked at McDonalds and know how they pay. Also, people know which companies to work for because they pay better than others (In-n-Out). 

Do they pay more or less? 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

It was not adopted in that form, but that was the intent. They didn't get everything they wanted, but they got some of the things for some of the people. I don't think the fact that they had to negotiate and compromise in order to get something past alters the intent, it's just what they were able to do. 

That was the intent of some people. There are many bills that have parts that some people support and legislation is passed that do not include those parts.  I do not see how you can then jump to the conclusion that the intent of those individuals is the intent of the legislation that is passed.  

[BlsdMama]

18 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think this is confusing two things.  Unemployment benefits are tied to an individual person's work and pay history.  They are not tied to whether someone is a dependent, married, any income, or past tax returns.  Unemployment benefits are state programs which each state administers.  The stimulus checks were tied to 2018 and 2019 tax returns and, unfortunately, left many in the group that you are describing completely out because they were dependents over the age of 17 (I think that was the cut off) in 2018. 

You are correct. 

However, previously someone said that there wasn't a good reason that a person claimed as a dependent wouldn't need any additional unemployment monies (or possibly unemployment) I think because the insinuation is, "Well, they are *dependent* thus they have food, shelter, basics, so they wouldn't need money.  It's just fluff."   This is not the case. Stimulus aside, unemployment (and the extra $600 and now proposed $200) can and should go to people who were claimed dependents but worked.  This is a huge circle of college kids - not everyone lived in the dorms and went home to mama and daddy when the schools closed up shop.  My DS, claimed as a dependent, lives in the city where his school is full time.  He did *not* lose his job (actually worked almost double hours as during the school year) and has done fine.  However, I was pointing out that not all dependents (claimed so on the 2018 or 2019 taxes) are living at home on the parents' dime, thus tying unemployment to dependency status would be a mistake.  While I understand it is needlessly giving some money to a few, by and large, people who are working do so to pay bills.  

😉

The new package the Republicans put forth yesterday (HEALS act) would give an additional $200 rather than $600.  

[BlsdMama]

8 hours ago, katilac said:

Do they pay more or less? 

I don't know, but our local CFA started my 16yo at $13 if she would work lunches - great for homeschool students.  I believe DS is up to $14, but he's been there a while. If I remember right, he started at $11.50 when he was 17?  Neither are managers, though DS was a shift manager for a short while - he left for a while and when he came back they offered him the same pay. We are in a low/moderate COL state.  When someone works fulltime there, they make more than that, neither of my kids are FT.  CFA (here) seems fairly close to on par with Costco although I can't speak to any benefits.  However, manufacturing jobs, which are fairly abundant here and are suited for people who want 40+ hours/week and better pay, start at $15 and you are usually up to $18-$19 within six months, assuming a large manufacturer.

Edited July 28, 2020 by BlsdMama

[HeartString]

1 hour ago, BlsdMama said:

I don't know, but our local CFA started my 16yo at $13 if she would work lunches - great for homeschool students.  I believe DS is up to $14, but he's been there a while. If I remember right, he started at $11.50 when he was 17?  Neither are managers, though DS was a shift manager for a short while - he left for a while and when he came back they offered him the same pay. We are in a low/moderate COL state.  When someone works fulltime there, they make more than that, neither of my kids are FT.  CFA (here) seems fairly close to on par with Costco although I can't speak to any benefits.  However, manufacturing jobs, which are fairly abundant here and are suited for people who want 40+ hours/week and better pay, start at $15 and you are usually up to $18-$19 within six months, assuming a large manufacturer.

There’s no consistency to this stuff.  We live in a higher COL area and my 18 year just started at Chick-fil-A at $10.  He works whichever shift they want him to.  

[hippiemamato3]

23 hours ago, SereneHome said:

OK, so what jobs pay min wage? And it goes back to what I was saying earlier - I don't think that all jobs, even at FT meant to be a supporting-a-person jobs.

Seriously? You don't think someone, anyone, working full time should be able to support themselves? I just can't even. 

[Meriwether]

On 7/27/2020 at 12:58 AM, Tap said:

I know soooo many teenagers in my state who are making a lot of money on Unemployment  right now. They may have only worked 1 day a week, but that was enough to qualify them for UI and the $600 per week. I have a friend whose 2 teenage daughters are making $2500-3000/month not working, but used to make $500/mth when they had jobs. The teens are hostesses in restaurants that  were closed due to Covid.  But families like mine, that use my paycheck to pay bills and eat, are still in limbo with decisions.  I hear this all the time from parents of teenagers. 😞 

A targeted approach makes wayyy more sense. Most teens don't really need $3000 UI/mth. (Unless they actually contribute to the household expenses ) LOL  But even with a broad-scatter, give it to everyone approach, the systems are still very, very overwhelmed. 

My daughter couldn't work either of her part time jobs for a couple months. It didn't even occur to us that she could or would file unemployment. I would have been furious if she had collected an extra $600 per week (over 6 times what she had been making). Does she need money? Of course she does. She is headed to college in a year. But that would have been no better than fraud.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Seriously? You don't think someone, anyone, working full time should be able to support themselves? I just can't even. 

I think there is a difference in every adult having access to full time work that allows them to support themselves and every available job having a wage such  that a person is able to support themselves fully.  

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Meriwether said:

My daughter couldn't work either of her part time jobs for a couple months. It didn't even occur to us that she could or would file unemployment. I would have been furious if she had collected an extra $600 per week (over 6 times what she had been making). Does she need money? Of course she does. She is headed to college in a year. But that would have been no better than fraud.

It's absolutely her decision whether to file or not, but I don't see how filing would be no better than fraud. They ask a series of questions to determine whether you are eligible or not. You can also choose to file for a certain number of weeks, say until you reach the amount you would have made working through the summer, and then simply quit filing. It's not a one and done deal; you have to continually certify that you are not working and not turning down employment. 

40 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think there is a difference in every adult having access to full time work that allows them to support themselves and every available job having a wage such  that a person is able to support themselves fully.  

What would that look like? How would the jobs be determined and 'qualified' as only supplemental? 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I think there is a difference in every adult having access to full time work that allows them to support themselves and every available job having a wage such  that a person is able to support themselves fully.  

I strongly disagree.
My kid is a really great employee (I’m told, lol.) She works equal to or better than the adults doing her same job for the same hours. She’s as valuable to the business as the next person.  This year, she even has more experience than some. To pay her less because she hasn’t moved out or had kids yet doesn’t make any rational sense.  
What if she’s making money TO be able to get independent?

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

I strongly disagree.
My kid is a really great employee (I’m told, lol.) She works equal to or better than the adults doing her same job for the same hours. She’s as valuable to the business as the next person.  This year, she even has more experience than some. To pay her less because she hasn’t moved out or had kids yet doesn’t make any rational sense.  
What if she’s making money TO be able to get independent?

I must not have made myself clear.  I did not mean for my comment to imply that a teen who works as well or better than adults is less valuable to a business, or should be paid less.  I did not say anything about paying someone less money because he or she had not moved out or had kids.  

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

 What would that look like? How would the jobs be determined and 'qualified' as only supplemental? 

I don't think that any specific job should be determined as supplemental.  But, I do think that if I really like painting pots, I can paint 1 pot per hour, and the most extra a customer is willing to pay for a painted pot is $10 I should be able to choose to enter into an employment contract where I am compensated at $10 per hour even if that is less than what some people define as a "livable" wage.  The employer can not compensate me more than $10 per hour because the value of my work is not higher.  If it is illegal for me to work for $10 per hour, because every job must pay enough for me to live, then I can't have that job.    

[hippiemamato3]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think there is a difference in every adult having access to full time work that allows them to support themselves and every available job having a wage such  that a person is able to support themselves fully.  

Yeah I don't think so, but it's ok if we don't agree. And, of course, neither is reality. 

[SereneHome]

5 hours ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Seriously? You don't think someone, anyone, working full time should be able to support themselves? I just can't even. 

You don't have to.

[hippiemamato3]

1 hour ago, SereneHome said:

You don't have to.

You're right...I don't. I am lucky enough to be a stay at home mom who hasn't worked in almost 20 years. But for the people who do have to - I'm going to fight for their right to a living wage. I don't know why anyone wouldn't. 

[SereneHome]

20 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

You're right...I don't. I am lucky enough to be a stay at home mom who hasn't worked in almost 20 years. But for the people who do have to - I'm going to fight for their right to a living wage. I don't know why anyone wouldn't. 

Good luck

I can't take any of your questions seriously, bc you picked one sentence out of fairly long posts that i had, while having a conversation with another poster, and use that sentence for your outrage. So, good luck with your fight.

[Meriwether]

5 hours ago, katilac said:

It's absolutely her decision whether to file or not, but I don't see how filing would be no better than fraud. They ask a series of questions to determine whether you are eligible or not. You can also choose to file for a certain number of weeks, say until you reach the amount you would have made working through the summer, and then simply quit filing. It's not a one and done deal; you have to continually certify that you are not working and not turning down employment. 

What would that look like? How would the jobs be determined and 'qualified' as only supplemental? 

While she lives with me, it is my decision, but thankfully I raised her better than to think she would file. Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right. That money was not meant to be boon to minimally employed teens. It was meant to keep people in their homes.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Danae said:

You could still paint pots and sell them yourself. You just couldn't work for less than minimum wage for someone else selling pots.

In some cases I would be able to do that, but other situations it would be more complicated in that my particular labor service is not easily disentangled from a product.  It would also mean that I would have to take on the  risk of holding inventory, charging sales tax, paying self employment tax and a lot of other complications. 

[katilac]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I don't think that any specific job should be determined as supplemental.  But, I do think that if I really like painting pots, I can paint 1 pot per hour, and the most extra a customer is willing to pay for a painted pot is $10 I should be able to choose to enter into an employment contract where I am compensated at $10 per hour even if that is less than what some people define as a "livable" wage.  The employer can not compensate me more than $10 per hour because the value of my work is not higher.  If it is illegal for me to work for $10 per hour, because every job must pay enough for me to live, then I can't have that job.    

This is not an actual dilemma. You can't have that job as an employee if the minimum wage is more than $10, but you could certainly choose to paint pots for $10 an hour as an independent contractor, a freelancer, or a small business owner. 

You can alter the scenario to something like factory assembly and it would be more applicable, because you can't do that specific work unless you are in the factory. Still, however much a person likes assembling widgets even though they are very bad at it, I wouldn't sacrifice a decent minimum wage for all just so that person can get the job.  

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

In some cases I would be able to do that, but other situations it would be more complicated in that my particular labor service is not easily disentangled from a product.  It would also mean that I would have to take on the  risk of holding inventory, charging sales tax, paying self employment tax and a lot of other complications. 

So do something else. Life is full of choices.