Second stimulus check

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, katilac said:

So do something else. Life is full of choices.  

Yes, life is full of choices.  But, why should I not be able to choose I job that I want at pay that is acceptable to me? I would not be hurting anyone else.  I can do the job for free as a volunteer.  

[katilac]

53 minutes ago, Meriwether said:

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.

Something not being right does not equal something being equal to fraud. I'm not harping on your post in particular, just trying to keep the meaning of fraud at the forefront in this thread (because so many people keep saying this or that person is doing something that actually is very much fraud). 

[Moonhawk]

7 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.  

I feel like something got conflated there and I'm afraid that if the conversation keeps rolling on w/o it being addressed, it's going to further confuse what people have actually been advocating. You are right that there is a difference, but no one above your post, that I can discern, has called these two things the same nor called for both to happen.

People (or at least me) have been advocating for the first part of your sentence, which I underlined above:

full time work that allows them to support themselves

Not necessarily the second part, which I italicized above (well, technically, I obliqued it):

every available job having a wage such that a person is able to support themselves fully

These are two separate ideas, so you are right there is a difference, but I'm not sure why we are even talking about the second scenario since I don't see this being brought up before. Namely, the word fulltime is key to most of our arguments here. I fully acknowledge that a part time job should not necessarily make enough money to support someone. "every available" as you put it, would include people working from 1-300 hours, which is too broad for the scope. I don't know if it was a misunderstanding or a misspeak. 

If you change it to 

every available full time job having a wage such that a person is able to support themselves fully

we could probably get some people to advocate for it, albeit a lot of disagreement on what that "fully" looks like. 

Also, the phrase "every adult having access to" (bolded in quote) is another red herring here, or at least a misstatement of the previous arguments, since no one was advocating that everyone should have the right to a job. I don't know anyone's stance on that particular idea in this thread, because this is the first time I am seeing it brought up. So I am going to throw that out as well, if you don't mind.

Which brings us back to the phrase "full time work that allows them to support themselves" as being the sticking point.

I'm not trying to be pendantic, I just didn't want the underlined and the obliqued to get conflated as the same thing. Which it felt like you might have thought *we* thought (or i shouldn't speak for a group, so *I* thought), since you started with "I think there is a difference." 

[katilac]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

Yes, life is full of choices.  But, why should I not be able to choose I job that I want at pay that is acceptable to me? I would not be hurting anyone else.  I can do the job for free as a volunteer.  

For the same reason that you can't work construction without a hard hat or buy medication that hasn't been tested; we have, as a society, decided that that the workforce needs certain rules in place in order to protect employees, consumers, and society at large. That's the short answer. The long answer involves a deep dive into the labor movement, and what companies are willing to do if employees are 'voluntarily' allowed to choose low wages or forgo safety precautions. But the short answer will do for now: our society has decided to regulate certain aspects of the workforce, and an individual cannot choose to ignore those regulations. 

There are jobs that do not fall under minimum wage guidelines. There are jobs that can be done freelance or as contract work. No one's rights are being trampled because they can't opt out of the minimum wage. 

 

 

 

[nrbeckking]

This thread leaves me wondering just how many of you attempted to raise a family on two minimum wage jobs. As someone who did so let me tell you it is downright impossible without government assistance even in low cost of living areas. I couldn't downsize from a 3 bedroom apartment due to housing rules that required opposite sex children have their own bedroom, there was no public transportation so a car was a necessity to get to and from work, and waiting to find a job that paid more than minimum wage was not an option because bills needed paying. Now I have work which means food stamps goes down, assisted housing rent goes up and it gets harder to pay bills. I was not able to consistently get 40 hours a week, schedules were posted less than 48 hours before the new work week started making scheduling interviews almost impossible. We had one vehicle so then we had to worry about if a new job would work with the other's job schedule because child care was well above what we could afford and the wait list for childcare was over a year long. Two minimum wage jobs literally led to our homelessness which in turn led to me losing my job because I couldn't leave the children to head to work while their father headed home within an hour or so. This is reality.

My safety net came in the form of my best friend and a 200 sq ft camper that she put at an RV park and didn't make me pay rent on. I had to pay the RV park and electric/water which was under 400 a month. Even though we were no longer without a place to call our own, my children were still considered homeless. Our homelessness meant CPS became involved with our family. This was both a blessing and a curse. The constant threats to take my children because we were poor added such a high level of stress but they did pay for childcare for the younger two for a bit which meant I could work two jobs (one during the day, one overnight). Yes they do take the children of poor people and then pay foster families to raise them for you instead of just supporting the family in the first place in case you were wondering. I lost 75 pounds that summer because all I did was work without time to eat properly and ran myself so ragged I couldn't think straight at any point in my day. The day CPS closed our case was the day I had to leave my daytime job......no more assistance with childcare meant I couldn't afford the care anymore. Thankfully my overnight job continued to pay enough to keep us off anyone's radar and I eventually got a raise. The next spring I went back to college and received the full pell grant and student loans and work study. This along with a minimum wage job allowed me to keep me and my kids safely housed and fed.

Just over 3 years later and I have a college degree but also am drawing unemployment because my daughter is high risk and the job I was working during my last semester of college (this past spring) was a front-line essential worker which her doctor specifically said I could not do and protect her health. What happens in two weeks when I am to draw unemployment again? I will get $400 (the minimum amount) for 2 weeks or $800 a month. I have remarried and my wife is a teacher so she does have her full-time income but that does not support a family of 6 alone. My income is necessary and going from around $4000 a month pre-Covid to $800 a month is going to be devastating. We took a pay cut with Covid by me drawing unemployment but only about a $600 a month cut. To have my income cut by $3200 a month is terrifying but at the same time my daughter getting this disease and potentially dying is just not a risk I am willing to take. Even if she didn't die, teachers' health insurance in my state is not great and would completely devastate us financially for a very long time. It is a very hard position to be in and it is constantly exhausting. Those of us pulling UI, those of us who need a living wage are real people with real families. We aren't some unnamed, faceless person. 

[StaceyinLA]

On 7/23/2020 at 6:29 PM, shinyhappypeople said:

I hope there's no second stimulus check (our country can't afford it), but there almost certainly will be one.  If the credit card is burning a hole in Congress' pocket, I'd rather those trillions of dollars be put towards temporarily expanding and increasing income eligibility limits for safety net programs.  On the other hand, that isn't the goal of the checks, so... yup.  I feel a little like a spectator at a circus right now.  Pass the popcorn, enjoy the show.

 

I am typically of this mindset, but right now, I’m so frustrated that so many people’s lives/livelihoods, and businesses have been ruined, along with states remaining shut down so people can’t work, that I think they absolutely need to issue stimulus checks AND extend unemployment. You can’t just stop people from earning a living.

I agree it feels like a circus, likely because it IS, but so many people have lost everything they’ve worked for their entire lives. It’s infuriating.

[Bootsie]

10 hours ago, katilac said:

For the same reason that you can't work construction without a hard hat or buy medication that hasn't been tested; we have, as a society, decided that that the workforce needs certain rules in place in order to protect employees, consumers, and society at large. That's the short answer. The long answer involves a deep dive into the labor movement, and what companies are willing to do if employees are 'voluntarily' allowed to choose low wages or forgo safety precautions. But the short answer will do for now: our society has decided to regulate certain aspects of the workforce, and an individual cannot choose to ignore those regulations. 

There are jobs that do not fall under minimum wage guidelines. There are jobs that can be done freelance or as contract work. No one's rights are being trampled because they can't opt out of the minimum wage. 

 

 

 

Safety precautions are a different subject.  Just because, in the past, society has decided to regulate certain aspects of the workforce, does not mean that those particular regulations should continue into the future.  There are many regulations, even in the workforce, that society has decided upon in the past that we would cringe about today.  Intelligent, educated people continue to discuss the situations and decide if that is best going forward.  If we want to take the position that because it was decided in the past we need to keep doing that, we would still have a minimum wage of under $1 and would only apply to 20% of the work force.  It was decided that agricultural workers did not fall under minimum wage--do we want to keep that regulation because it was what was decided?  

Although you say that the workforce needs certain rules in place to protect employees, consumers, and society at large, you do not address my underlying question.  WHY is a minimum wage that is high enough for a person working 40 hours per week to support themselves (and perhaps a spouse and couple of dependents and some has suggested) fully one of those certain rules?  

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

WHY is a minimum wage that is high enough for a person working 40 hours per week to support themselves (and perhaps a spouse and couple of dependents and some has suggested) fully one of those certain rules?  

 I'm not ignoring this question but thinking about it a bit before answering. 

[Carrie12345]

On 7/28/2020 at 8:24 PM, 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.    

There are two intertwined principles at play for me. One is, someone who is hired for painting 40 pots over 40 hours in a week to earn money not just for themselves but for additional people in the company is deserving of a living wage (and I’m not placing a specific figure on that because I am open to regional wiggle room to an extent.).  40 hours sweeping floors, 40 hours picking flowers, 40 hours filing nails, 40 hours driving people around, whatever. The time people devote to another’s business in order for it to function is worthy of a sustainable life outside of work. 
*If* that pot cannot be sold for a price that covers the cost of production it, or offset by higher margin items, the business owner should reconsider their inventory.  If I am my own independent pot painter, I can make my own life choices that don’t take advantage of other people.

When we think about sweat shops in other countries (because we never like to think about what are basically other versions of sweat shops in our own), we don’t think, “Well, a business has to make a profit!” Do we?  We don’t think “Well, those people should train for more lucrative jobs” or “They shouldn’t have had families until they were financially stable” or “That job is just supposed to be for <gulp> kids.” It’s business owners making THEIR living off of the desperation of others. And we give them the incentive to do so.

I’ve heard a lot of people argue for a business owner’s “right” to make money, but none of them have been able to tell me why their “right” is greater than people they employ. I really want to own a business. I’ve had several in mind over the years. Let’s take a homeschool store.  I’m in love with the idea of owning a homeschool store. I’ve analyzed it to death and determined that the only chance (Not guarantee) of that working out would be if I ran the store from open to close every day and did all of the financials, ordering, cleaning, marketing/social media/customer service, taxes and every other job involved in the business because it would be unlikely that I could turn a profit by paying other people fair wages. And if I could push people like SWB to undercut THEIR value and supply me with their materials real cheap to boost my profit. Why should she or other writers and publishers mind if it means I could be successful in my goals?
So I don’t have a homeschool store.  It bums me out, but my rights aren’t being violated. No one owes me a homeschool store or a fitness center or an insurance consulting firm or a painted pot store.  I am, however, free to paint pots on my own and sell them for whatever I’m willing to take.

I have 10 other tangents in my head, but I realize I’m very rambly and jumbled this morning, so I won’t go on.

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

There are two intertwined principles at play for me. One is, someone who is hired for painting 40 pots over 40 hours in a week to earn money not just for themselves but for additional people in the company is deserving of a living wage (and I’m not placing a specific figure on that because I am open to regional wiggle room to an extent.).  40 hours sweeping floors, 40 hours picking flowers, 40 hours filing nails, 40 hours driving people around, whatever. The time people devote to another’s business in order for it to function is worthy of a sustainable life outside of work. 
*If* that pot cannot be sold for a price that covers the cost of production it, or offset by higher margin items, the business owner should reconsider their inventory.  If I am my own independent pot painter, I can make my own life choices that don’t take advantage of other people.

When we think about sweat shops in other countries (because we never like to think about what are basically other versions of sweat shops in our own), we don’t think, “Well, a business has to make a profit!” Do we?  We don’t think “Well, those people should train for more lucrative jobs” or “They shouldn’t have had families until they were financially stable” or “That job is just supposed to be for <gulp> kids.” It’s business owners making THEIR living off of the desperation of others. And we give them the incentive to do so.

I’ve heard a lot of people argue for a business owner’s “right” to make money, but none of them have been able to tell me why their “right” is greater than people they employ. I really want to own a business. I’ve had several in mind over the years. Let’s take a homeschool store.  I’m in love with the idea of owning a homeschool store. I’ve analyzed it to death and determined that the only chance (Not guarantee) of that working out would be if I ran the store from open to close every day and did all of the financials, ordering, cleaning, marketing/social media/customer service, taxes and every other job involved in the business because it would be unlikely that I could turn a profit by paying other people fair wages. And if I could push people like SWB to undercut THEIR value and supply me with their materials real cheap to boost my profit. Why should she or other writers and publishers mind if it means I could be successful in my goals?
So I don’t have a homeschool store.  It bums me out, but my rights aren’t being violated. No one owes me a homeschool store or a fitness center or an insurance consulting firm or a painted pot store.  I am, however, free to paint pots on my own and sell them for whatever I’m willing to take.

I have 10 other tangents in my head, but I realize I’m very rambly and jumbled this morning, so I won’t go on.

But, I didn't say anything about a business owner's right to make money.  Why do I not have the right to accept a job painting pots or whatever I would like to do at a wage I find acceptable?  Why can I volunteer to do the job for free, but I can't be paid $7 per hour to do the job?  

Why do you consider a business person be taking advantage of me to pay me $7 per hour as an employee to paint pots (and also have other payroll taxes, inventory costs, etc.) BUT if I am a freelance person and paint the pot and make $7 per hour (and ALSO have to pay self-employment tax, take on inventory risk, etc.) selling my goods to the business person the business person isn't taking advantage of me?  In fact, the business will be making MORE money if I am working as a free lance person.  

[katilac]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

40 hours sweeping floors, 40 hours picking flowers, 40 hours filing nails, 40 hours driving people around, whatever. The time people devote to another’s business in order for it to function is worthy of a sustainable life outside of work.  

This is a large part of my thought process. If the work is needed for the business to prosper, then it is worthy of decent pay.  

If the work isn't essential, then either don't have it done or do it yourself. 

Some business models are not sustainable. If you can't pay a needed employee a decent wage, then yours is likely one of them.   

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, I didn't say anything about a business owner's right to make money.  Why do I not have the right to accept a job painting pots or whatever I would like to do at a wage I find acceptable?  Why can I volunteer to do the job for free, but I can't be paid $7 per hour to do the job?  

Why do you consider a business person be taking advantage of me to pay me $7 per hour as an employee to paint pots (and also have other payroll taxes, inventory costs, etc.) BUT if I am a freelance person and paint the pot and make $7 per hour (and ALSO have to pay self-employment tax, take on inventory risk, etc.) selling my goods to the business person the business person isn't taking advantage of me?  In fact, the business will be making MORE money if I am working as a free lance person.  

You talk about doing jobs for free as a volunteer, but you can't be a volunteer at a business. Businesses and nonprofits have fundamental differences under the law and are treated differently.  Even at a nonprofit, you cannot volunteer extra hours to your organization for the job you are already hired to do. If you paint pots for them Monday to Friday, they cannot accept your offer to paint them for free on Saturdays, or do any other type of craft. If you also answer the phone and fill out paperwork when not painting pots, then they cannot accept your offer to register race participants for free on Saturday. This is to protect hourly employees from being 'voluntold' they should help out on their days off, because it's a nonprofit after all. A nonprofit I worked for long ago got their butts handed to them for doing this, and had to pay a huge amount in back wages. 

Freelance and contract work are also fundamentally different from employment and operating under different rules. Employer and worker both gain and lose things under this model. The employer may gain profit on that particular item or service, either because the cost is lower or because they don't have to pay someone every week and they don't have benefit costs. The worker has much more control over their schedule and other perks which may be valuable to them. A lot of jobs are misclassified as contract work, but that's a different problem.  

With the way our system is set up, businesses have far more money and power than employees do. This is one reason I support laws that protect employees, such as minimum wage. There is a reason the labor history of the United States is a bloody one - many businesses had no qualms about using threats and violence to keep people working at starvation wages. I don't see why it would be any different today. Even if there was less actual bloodshed, there are other ways of threatening people. Local businesses can have a lot of local power, which means your renovation project might mysteriously fail to get code approval, or you get rousted by the cops for dubious reasons, or detained by ICE even if you're legal, or your own business can't get fire marshall approval or other necessities because you do pay a living wage. 

Fighting for your 'right' to be employed for less is akin to the people fighting for the right not to wear masks: it's not just about you, it affects other people's lives. You said that safety precautions are a completely different subject, but I disagree. Not making enough money to survive on is certainly an issue that affects your health and safety. 

Workers that sustain a business should be able to sustain themselves outside of work. For practicality, all employment must be covered under rules such as minimum wage. Options other than straight employment do exist, such as being an independent contractor or a volunteer at a nonprofit. If none of those work for you, then it's just too bad - we don't have the right to the exact job we want. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

This is a large part of my thought process. If the work is needed for the business to prosper, then it is worthy of decent pay.  

If the work isn't essential, then either don't have it done or do it yourself. 

Some business models are not sustainable. If you can't pay a needed employee a decent wage, then yours is likely one of them.   

You talk about doing jobs for free as a volunteer, but you can't be a volunteer at a business. Businesses and nonprofits have fundamental differences under the law and are treated differently.  Even at a nonprofit, you cannot volunteer extra hours to your organization for the job you are already hired to do. If you paint pots for them Monday to Friday, they cannot accept your offer to paint them for free on Saturdays, or do any other type of craft. If you also answer the phone and fill out paperwork when not painting pots, then they cannot accept your offer to register race participants for free on Saturday. This is to protect hourly employees from being 'voluntold' they should help out on their days off, because it's a nonprofit after all. A nonprofit I worked for long ago got their butts handed to them for doing this, and had to pay a huge amount in back wages. 

Freelance and contract work are also fundamentally different from employment and operating under different rules. Employer and worker both gain and lose things under this model. The employer may gain profit on that particular item or service, either because the cost is lower or because they don't have to pay someone every week and they don't have benefit costs. The worker has much more control over their schedule and other perks which may be valuable to them. A lot of jobs are misclassified as contract work, but that's a different problem.  

With the way our system is set up, businesses have far more money and power than employees do. This is one reason I support laws that protect employees, such as minimum wage. There is a reason the labor history of the United States is a bloody one - many businesses had no qualms about using threats and violence to keep people working at starvation wages. I don't see why it would be any different today. Even if there was less actual bloodshed, there are other ways of threatening people. Local businesses can have a lot of local power, which means your renovation project might mysteriously fail to get code approval, or you get rousted by the cops for dubious reasons, or detained by ICE even if you're legal, or your own business can't get fire marshall approval or other necessities because you do pay a living wage. 

Fighting for your 'right' to be employed for less is akin to the people fighting for the right not to wear masks: it's not just about you, it affects other people's lives. You said that safety precautions are a completely different subject, but I disagree. Not making enough money to survive on is certainly an issue that affects your health and safety. 

Workers that sustain a business should be able to sustain themselves outside of work. For practicality, all employment must be covered under rules such as minimum wage. Options other than straight employment do exist, such as being an independent contractor or a volunteer at a nonprofit. If none of those work for you, then it's just too bad - we don't have the right to the exact job we want. 

I am not seeing how my right to work at a job at a wage I agree to, (which is different from my right to be employed), is akin to not wearing a mask.  How exactly does it affect other people's lives?  If I am working for a reason other than having money to survive, why is my choosing to work at a particular wage risky my health and safety or anyone else's?  Why would my having a job where I make $7 per hour affect my health and safety any more than my having no job and making $0 per hour?  Why would my working at a job making $7 per hour affect my health and safety (and that of others) any more than my doing freelance work at $7 per hour?  If the argument is that somehow my accepting employment at $7 isn't enough to support myself, so I shouldn't be allowed to do it because it impacts others, that logic it seems should also prevent me from engaging in freelance work that earns me $7 per hour.  

Because the fire marshall, ICE, or those government agencies in charge of code approval may act in dishonest, unethical, illegal ways doesn't seem to be a compelling argument for me not to be able to work at a job at a wage that is acceptable to me.  Because there is illegal behavior we need more laws?  

[mommyoffive]

Sounds like they are getting close.

From what I just heard the 

1200 and 500 are agreed upon.

Although the have talked about all different amounts for the extra unemployment.   200, 300, 400 and 600.  It sounds like the ate open to 600 if the president wants it.  They are hoping to have a vote by Friday. 

[hjffkj]

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

Sounds like they are getting close.

From what I just heard the 

1200 and 500 are agreed upon.

Although the have talked about all different amounts for the extra unemployment.   200, 300, 400 and 600.  It sounds like the ate open to 600 if the president wants it.  They are hoping to have a vote by Friday. 

My guess is the extra unemployment will be 600 and have a set date to start tapering off.  

I really hope they vote by Friday.  

[mommyoffive]

Thoughts on the executive order Trump just signed?

[HeartString]

6 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Thoughts on the executive order Trump just signed?

My only thought is I’m pretty sure he can’t actually do any of it without Congress.   Congress has the power of the purse, so how is he going to fund his order without congress?  

[mommyoffive]

1 hour ago, Cnew02 said:

My only thought is I’m pretty sure he can’t actually do any of it without Congress.   Congress has the power of the purse, so how is he going to fund his order without congress?  

Right and aren't they on vacation?

Edited August 8, 2020 by mommyoffive

[hjffkj]

2 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Right and aren't they on vacation?

No, Mitch McConnell delayed it

[2squared]

On 7/28/2020 at 3:11 PM, 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 not fraud to claim unemployment for which are you eligible. 

My 18yo claimed unemployment for about a month. I wish we had applied sooner so she would have collected more. She wasn’t able to work her normal summer jobs, and she did lose income due to Covid. She will be the generation stuck with paying back all this debt, and I expect she will have trouble with employment opportunities for the next couple of years. She is much more deserving of the unemployment payments than I was of deserving the $4900 check I received from the government. Many people made more money on unemployment than they did while working. Why wouldn’t teens as welll?

[2squared]

1 hour ago, Happymomof1 said:

Ok, I guess I'm having a really hard time understanding this.  So, you are saying when I accepted teaching at a private school part time 12,000 a year or full time 20,000 a year was equivalent to fighting for people not to wear masks???  I'm so confused.  No, people couldn't' live on the salary. Most of us had husbands that were supporting us or had already retired from the public school system, but didn't really want to retire and were just doing it for "fun"/ to keep our minds occupied/loved giving back, etc.  It was a ministry.  So that is wrong??

I agree. We have taken on part-time jobs for experience, fun, to help others out, and/or to make a little extra over the years. I would be very disappointed if those opportunities were eliminated because minimum pay was pushed too high. 

We’ve also taken on employment where we didn’t want a career or to sustain our family on it. We just wanted an easy, low-skilled job with commiserate pay. Those are the types of jobs my teens are currently interested in, and jobs I dream about having after my kids are out of the nest. I would be very disappointed if that type of employment was eliminated as well. 

I don’t think every W-2 job should be designed to support a family. We do have segments of our population who aren’t trying to support a family with their work. 

[Moonhawk]

21 minutes ago, 2squared said:

I agree. We have taken on part-time jobs for experience, fun, to help others out, and/or to make a little extra over the years. I would be very disappointed if those opportunities were eliminated because minimum pay was pushed too high. 

We’ve also taken on employment where we didn’t want a career or to sustain our family on it. We just wanted an easy, low-skilled job with commiserate pay. Those are the types of jobs my teens are currently interested in, and jobs I dream about having after my kids are out of the nest. I would be very disappointed if that type of employment was eliminated as well. 

I don’t think every W-2 job should be designed to support a family. We do have segments of our population who aren’t trying to support a family with their work. 

I'm not sure why part time jobs keep getting brought up as a reason a full time job should not pay enough to support at least the person working it. At least one person, full time job, survival wage. 

And yes, segments of the population are not trying to support a family. Some want fun money. Some have no current expenses not covered by other means. Some are just looking for fulfillment and find their skills aren't suited to a volunteer position. Some are saving up for a nicer x y z. (And, a big part is only trying to support only themselves, sans family.)

I mean, if anything, there would probably be more part-time jobs for the people like this if a survivable wage was actually paid for full time work. And, no one is saying that full time jobs should only be reserved for only people who "need" the money. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Moonhawk said:

I'm not sure why part time jobs keep getting brought up as a reason a full time job should not pay enough to support at least the person working it. At least one person, full time job, survival wage. 

And yes, segments of the population are not trying to support a family. Some want fun money. Some have no current expenses not covered by other means. Some are just looking for fulfillment and find their skills aren't suited to a volunteer position. Some are saving up for a nicer x y z. (And, a big part is only trying to support only themselves, sans family.)

I mean, if anything, there would probably be more part-time jobs for the people like this if a survivable wage was actually paid for full time work. And, no one is saying that full time jobs should only be reserved for only people who "need" the money. 

This poster brought up an example of reasons why people in their family had taken jobs, happened to be part-time.  I don't take that to mean that part time jobs were a reason why a full time job should not pay enough to support the person working.  The same reasons that the poster pointed to (in what happened to be a part time job for them) would be reasons some people may choose to work a full time job at a wage that is below what others deem a survival wage.  I haven't really seen people advocating for a government mandated livable wage if someone is working full-time, but it at the same time it should be allowable for someone who chooses to work part-time at a lower wage than that.

Could you explain your reasoning behind the bolded?  That isn't obvious to me.

[TechWife]

On 7/27/2020 at 4:17 PM, 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.

I realize I am a bit late to the discussion. However, the purpose of working is to support yourself. Why would anyone have as their end goal to work at a job where you can't do that? People work the jobs because they have to and they often work multiple jobs in order to support themselves - a full time job at 40 hours per week + a part time job at 20 hours per week and they still don't make ends meet. People aren't working for the fun of it - even people who like their jobs need to get paid. That's the whole point of working.

[Moonhawk]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

[Moonhawk said : I mean, if anything, there would probably be more part-time jobs for the people like this if a survivable wage was actually paid for full time work. ]

This poster brought up an example of reasons why people in their family had taken jobs, happened to be part-time.  I don't take that to mean that part time jobs were a reason why a full time job should not pay enough to support the person working.  The same reasons that the poster pointed to (in what happened to be a part time job for them) would be reasons some people may choose to work a full time job at a wage that is below what others deem a survival wage.  I haven't really seen people advocating for a government mandated livable wage if someone is working full-time, but it at the same time it should be allowable for someone who chooses to work part-time at a lower wage than that.

Could you explain your reasoning behind the bolded?  That isn't obvious to me.

Hmm. I can take your point, about the poster I quoted, though they did say "every W2" and I think after I read that I looked at the rest of their post in a different light. And I did agree with them on the reasons people opt for part-time work. 

I think actually the crux of their argument was " I would be very disappointed if those opportunities were eliminated because minimum pay was pushed too high. " (I didn't address that), and ties nicely into your question to me. 

So, if a business has only enough budget for $15K/year, and the min. wage in their area increases such that $15K = 28 hours a week instead of 40 (no I'm not doing actual math, lol) instead of getting 1 person full time, they will have a part time position opened (maybe 2). Or if a business has $150K budget and it comes out to 5.75 people, instead of of 7 full time employees, you'll probably have 5 full time and ~2 part time.

So part time jobs will still be accessible, I don't see that they would be pushed out of market. Full time jobs, yes, I can see those being pushed out, but part time would be created to fill the gap that these lost full time jobs leave.

[Now, you can point out the obvious that this means 2 people who perhaps needed to support themselves will be "losing" their full time time job, but that isn't my concern at this point of the imagination.]

[TechWife]

On 8/8/2020 at 6:33 PM, mommyoffive said:

Thoughts on the executive order Trump just signed?

They won't hold. Congress controls the budget. Also, the way that he framed them at his press conference was misleading. He wants states to pay 25% of the supplemental payment and no one in a particular state will get the $ if their state doesn't pay the 25% for everyone. States are cutting their own budgets due to a smaller workforce and less retail sales tax revenue. Also, it isn't set up to run through the current unemployment system - it requires the Dept. of the Treasury to set up an entirely new system and that will take months  = and it will also cost money. Cutting payroll taxes is code for cutting Social Security and Medicare - it won't help in the long run. The EO's don't contain any provisions to get this paid for, so it's the equivalent of an unfunded mandate, but it's unfunded at both the federal and state levels. I think this is just showmanship.

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Hmm. I can take your point, about the poster I quoted, though they did say "every W2" and I think after I read that I looked at the rest of their post in a different light. And I did agree with them on the reasons people opt for part-time work. 

I think actually the crux of their argument was " I would be very disappointed if those opportunities were eliminated because minimum pay was pushed too high. " (I didn't address that), and ties nicely into your question to me. 

So, if a business has only enough budget for $15K/year, and the min. wage in their area increases such that $15K = 28 hours a week instead of 40 (no I'm not doing actual math, lol) instead of getting 1 person full time, they will have a part time position opened (maybe 2). Or if a business has $150K budget and it comes out to 5.75 people, instead of of 7 full time employees, you'll probably have 5 full time and ~2 part time.

So part time jobs will still be accessible, I don't see that they would be pushed out of market. Full time jobs, yes, I can see those being pushed out, but part time would be created to fill the gap that these lost full time jobs leave.

[Now, you can point out the obvious that this means 2 people who perhaps needed to support themselves will be "losing" their full time time job, but that isn't my concern at this point of the imagination.]

Thanks.  So, if a higher minimum wage means employers cut down on total number of hours they are hiring people, it sounds as if you are suggesting that there will be fewer full time jobs available and more part-time jobs available.  I agree with that logic.  I think however, you would see that firms reduced the total number of hours worked.  The way a business has a budget for $15K per year is if they have a worker working 40 hours per week; if the wage is increased such that $15K is reached after 28 hours, the business would not be getting as much productivity for spending $15K and would no longer be able to spend $15K.  So, I agree that there would be a move from full-time to part-time AND a reduction in total hours available (when all of the part-time and full-time hours are added).

This, then seems counterproductive to me.  If the goal was to make sure that someone working could support a family, now you have people working fewer total hours, getting a higher hourly wage, but in total earning less money.  

[SereneHome]

12 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I realize I am a bit late to the discussion. However, the purpose of working is to support yourself. Why would anyone have as their end goal to work at a job where you can't do that? People work the jobs because they have to and they often work multiple jobs in order to support themselves - a full time job at 40 hours per week + a part time job at 20 hours per week and they still don't make ends meet. People aren't working for the fun of it - even people who like their jobs need to get paid. That's the whole point of working.

I am guessing that this is a rhetorical question as you and I have gotten into similar conversations before and you first started yelling and then left in a huff. So, may be someone else will decide to answer it. 

[Moonhawk]

32 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Thanks.  So, if a higher minimum wage means employers cut down on total number of hours they are hiring people, it sounds as if you are suggesting that there will be fewer full time jobs available and more part-time jobs available.  I agree with that logic.  I think however, you would see that firms reduced the total number of hours worked.  The way a business has a budget for $15K per year is if they have a worker working 40 hours per week; if the wage is increased such that $15K is reached after 28 hours, the business would not be getting as much productivity for spending $15K and would no longer be able to spend $15K.  So, I agree that there would be a move from full-time to part-time AND a reduction in total hours available (when all of the part-time and full-time hours are added).

This, then seems counterproductive to me.  If the goal was to make sure that someone working could support a family, now you have people working fewer total hours, getting a higher hourly wage, but in total earning less money.  

Yes, as I said, that is a completely plausible outcome. That I wasn't concerned about in this particular imagination of how it would work. "Not concerned" as in, not focusing on, not a "not concerned" that I think would be a hunky dory totally ok thing.

I was only pointing out that part time jobs would not fully disappear if wages increased, and even if full time jobs decreased. And that there is a possibility that there are more part time jobs than before. I was not fixing the entire economic system. I'm sure there could be safeguards and other things in place to alleviate the long term affects and hopefully retain as much work/productivity as possible.

Longterm the goal is not to be counterproductive, and if people were sincere about making it work I think the immediate difficulties could be short-ish in duration. Short term, though, adjustments are not usually fun and I don't pretend otherwise.  

However, the current situation is also "not fun" for many. I don't see how the "not fun" actuality is acceptable and the "not fun" possibility is not. 

eta: Part of my post feels like a copout. But, at this point, I'm still seeing that one of the biggest setbacks to making a survivable wage work is that people don't think we should. I'm still trying to build the first principle agreement or at least a toleration. I try not to get too into the weeds of economic theory and the brass tacks of HOW to make it happen, when we are still discussing whether or not we SHOULD (or, perhaps, should even try).  And the conversation is still continuing 🙂  

Edited August 10, 2020 by Moonhawk

[TechWife]

20 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I am guessing that this is a rhetorical question as you and I have gotten into similar conversations before and you first started yelling and then left in a huff. So, may be someone else will decide to answer it. 

I seriously don't have any idea what you are talking about but I do find this post to be immature. You can simply choose not to engage with me if you don't want to converse with me. There is no need to bring up an old grudge you seem to be holding in a public manner.

I hope you have a good evening.

 

[SereneHome]

22 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I seriously don't have any idea what you are talking about but I do find this post to be immature. You can simply choose not to engage with me if you don't want to converse with me. There is no need to bring up an old grudge you seem to be holding in a public manner.

I hope you have a good evening.

 

See, there you go again.

I responded bc I think it's rude to ignore a person when they are speaking to you.

I also don't hold any grudges.  I just extended you the courtesy of explaining why I won't engage with you.  To me, that's just a civilized thing to do. Evidently, to you, it's something else

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

I realize I am a bit late to the discussion. However, the purpose of working is to support yourself. Why would anyone have as their end goal to work at a job where you can't do that? People work the jobs because they have to and they often work multiple jobs in order to support themselves - a full time job at 40 hours per week + a part time job at 20 hours per week and they still don't make ends meet. People aren't working for the fun of it - even people who like their jobs need to get paid. That's the whole point of working.

I do not think that the purpose of working is to support yourself.  I think for many people, it is, but I know many examples where it isn't.  I have known people who worked for enjoyment, a sense of fulfillment, a sense of calling, training, experience, power, prestige, a sense of accomplishment, and for saving toward an extra-special item.  Yes, some people work jobs because they have to, and some people work multiple jobs in order to support themselves, but that is not everyone.  

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Moonhawk said:

Yes, as I said, that is a completely plausible outcome. That I wasn't concerned about in this particular imagination of how it would work. "Not concerned" as in, not focusing on, not a "not concerned" that I think would be a hunky dory totally ok thing.

I was only pointing out that part time jobs would not fully disappear if wages increased, and even if full time jobs decreased. And that there is a possibility that there are more part time jobs than before. I was not fixing the entire economic system. I'm sure there could be safeguards and other things in place to alleviate the long term affects and hopefully retain as much work/productivity as possible.

Longterm the goal is not to be counterproductive, and if people were sincere about making it work I think the immediate difficulties could be short-ish in duration. Short term, though, adjustments are not usually fun and I don't pretend otherwise.  

However, the current situation is also "not fun" for many. I don't see how the "not fun" actuality is acceptable and the "not fun" possibility is not. 

eta: Part of my post feels like a copout. But, at this point, I'm still seeing that one of the biggest setbacks to making a survivable wage work is that people don't think we should. I'm still trying to build the first principle agreement or at least a toleration. I try not to get too into the weeds of economic theory and the brass tacks of HOW to make it happen, when we are still discussing whether or not we SHOULD (or, perhaps, should even try).  And the conversation is still continuing 🙂  

Economic theory will help inform whether we CAN even make it happen.  I may think it would be nice and we should do it if we could, but if it is something that economic theory tells us will tell us will have consequences, we need to factor those consequences into our decision making.  I can want something, wish for something, think something would be good but I can't ignore reality.  I have never seen anyone who can point to safeguards and what could be put in place to alleviate the long term affects.  I don't see the issue being one of people being sincere about it working, or even wanting it to work.  Economist Alan Blinder had a good book in the 1980s that addressed this issue entitled "Hard Heads, Soft Hearts" where he outlined how we can be caring, ethical, and moral (soft hearts), but we must not ignore economic theory and logic (hard heads) or we end up causing more damage than we would have otherwise.  It would be like really caring for some people whose land floods and building a dam--but the water has to go somewhere and, while we have very good intentions, we may unintentionally cause more flooding and damage to other lands.

[Moonhawk]

40 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Economic theory will help inform whether we CAN even make it happen.  I may think it would be nice and we should do it if we could, but if it is something that economic theory tells us will tell us will have consequences, we need to factor those consequences into our decision making.  I can want something, wish for something, think something would be good but I can't ignore reality.  I have never seen anyone who can point to safeguards and what could be put in place to alleviate the long term affects.  I don't see the issue being one of people being sincere about it working, or even wanting it to work.  Economist Alan Blinder had a good book in the 1980s that addressed this issue entitled "Hard Heads, Soft Hearts" where he outlined how we can be caring, ethical, and moral (soft hearts), but we must not ignore economic theory and logic (hard heads) or we end up causing more damage than we would have otherwise.  It would be like really caring for some people whose land floods and building a dam--but the water has to go somewhere and, while we have very good intentions, we may unintentionally cause more flooding and damage to other lands.

I am saying the "should even try" seems to be missing. As in, if people disagree that it is even a worthwhile goal, it doesn't make sense to talk about the economic limitations of trying. I am trying to get the "should" before going to the "how." We have seen on the thread people that disagree that working full time should afford a living wage, I know people in real life in face think that "flipping burgers" should absolutely NOT allow someone to support themselves.  So I don't think we are past that stage.

I do agree that wishful thinking isn't a replacement for realistic plans. I am not saying we should just go all-in tomorrow and raise the minimum wage, etc. There has to be sound economic theory and policies to shape the river, where it will flow, what it will flood, and where the droughts will occur, to borrow and build on the analogy. 

It may turn out the the "how" isn't possible (I don't believe that, but it's a possibility) or that the vision of what it turns out to be has to be substantially changed from our original imagination. 

But it is easy to disagree "of course we can't do A, what will happen to B if we do??" and pick apart particular arguments, and not argue in good faith and trying to work to a solution if we are disagreement of where we should go (or if one person is already assuming it is impossible). It's easy to kill ideas when you have no interest in making them work. It's "black hatting" (critiquing) an idea when we should be trying to be using only green hat or white hats (creative and informational). There is plenty of time and proper places for black hat, and constructive uses, but if it's used too early it kills the discussion, not strengthens it. 

So I don't consider it, at this stage, to be "ignoring economic theory" as much as deciding what goals our economic theory should be aiming to achieve.

eta: I don't feel like I'm disagreeing with you. I am saying "Let's make a river!" and you are saying "A river needs planning!" and neither of us are really disagreeing, just with a different focus. Unless what you are saying is "A river is dangerous and should not be attempted." or "A river is impossible to build." In which case we are disagreeing, and I am trying to convince you that we should try. 

Also, I've never liked the idea of this particular topic being a product of "soft heart" because to me this also would be a solid economic boon if achieved. Practically speaking, this would totally make the entire economy a stronger and more stable beast that serves the benefit of more people. That isn't a soft-heart-only want. (And I know you aren't using the term, and are just referencing the book. )

Edited August 10, 2020 by Moonhawk

[maize]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I do not think that the purpose of working is to support yourself.  I think for many people, it is, but I know many examples where it isn't.  I have known people who worked for enjoyment, a sense of fulfillment, a sense of calling, training, experience, power, prestige, a sense of accomplishment, and for saving toward an extra-special item.  Yes, some people work jobs because they have to, and some people work multiple jobs in order to support themselves, but that is not everyone.  

Most people work because they have to.

In particular, the overwhelming majority of people working minimum wage jobs are working because they have to.

If you know a high percentage of people who are working just for fun, let alone for things like power and prestige, you must move in very privileged circles.

[Moonhawk]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I do not think that the purpose of working is to support yourself.  I think for many people, it is, but I know many examples where it isn't.  I have known people who worked for enjoyment, a sense of fulfillment, a sense of calling, training, experience, power, prestige, a sense of accomplishment, and for saving toward an extra-special item.  Yes, some people work jobs because they have to, and some people work multiple jobs in order to support themselves, but that is not everyone.  

Actually, this makes me look deeper at the implications. 

Are we saying that because some people want to make money that they don't need, that many other people who are working full time should not be able to make enough to support themselves?

I am not sure that this is the argument you are going for, but on a second read this seems to be the implicated logic by bringing up other purposes of work and why work as a whole should not support a person. 

edit: Or is this just observation that you don't think has any real bearing on the should/not full time = livable wage?

Edited August 10, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Bootsie]

19 minutes ago, maize said:

Most people work because they have to.

In particular, the overwhelming majority of people working minimum wage jobs are working because they have to.

If you know a high percentage of people who are working just for fun, let alone for things like power and prestige, you must move in very privileged circles.

Is there an evidence that supports this claim?

The average household income of a minimum wage worker is over $53,000.  About 2/3 of minimum wage earners live in households that are more than 150% above the poverty line.  The majority of minimum wage workers are under 25 years old https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents

I was not saying that most people do not work because they have to, or anything about what percentage does.  However, the poster I was replying to was suggesting that the purpose of works was to support oneself and that people wouldn't work for fun.  I do not think that is a universal statement.  

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Actually, this makes me look deeper at the implications. 

Are we saying that because some people want to make money that they don't need, that many other people who are working full time should not be able to make enough to support themselves?

I am not sure that this is the argument you are going for, but on a second read this seems to be the implicated logic by bringing up other purposes of work and why work as a whole should not support a person. 

No, I am not saying that at all.  I brought up other purposes of work, because I do not agree with the poster's comment that the purpose of work is to support a person.  

 I would not say that because some people want to make money they don't need, that many other people should not be able to make enough to support themselves.  Why would those two things be connected?  How does Person A making a choice to work cause other people not to make enough to support themselves?  

 

[Moonhawk]

Just now, Bootsie said:

No, I am not saying that at all.  I brought up other purposes of work, because I do not agree with the poster's comment that the purpose of work is to support a person.  

 I would not say that because some people want to make money they don't need, that many other people should not be able to make enough to support themselves.  Why would those two things be connected?  How does Person A making a choice to work cause other people not to make enough to support themselves?  

 

No that's fine, I edited a couple minutes ago when I thought more about the possible ways and how the topic was brought up in the actual conversation. The idea just blindsided me that maybe I had completely missed the point and then posted the question. Thanks for clarifying.

[Tap]

40 minutes ago, maize said:

Most people work because they have to.

In particular, the overwhelming majority of people working minimum wage jobs are working because they have to.

If you know a high percentage of people who are working just for fun, let alone for things like power and prestige, you must move in very privileged circles.

I actually don't agree that most people work because they have to.  I thought of 20 couples I know. Solely picking them based on the 1st twenty that came to mind. At least half of the second wage earners, do not have to work to have a modest house, save a bit for emergencies, take a $1000 vacation a year, have two modest cars, pay medical bills, and pay for average food/medicine/living expenses. I know many couples, where the second income, tips them in the $200,000 per year or higher income bracket. I am not well off (very low end of middle class)and probably half  of who I am talking about, the second paycheck person makes $40-60,000 per year.  A lot of my friends work because they want the privileges of a second income. They don't have to have it to put food on the table. 

I absolutely believe that someone else can chime in and say they know 20 people who live below the poverty line, possibly even with a 2nd income. It is obviously relative to each persons demographic, but I would consider myself very middle of the road. (dh and I both have only a High school education, work in a city, live in an average 20yo suburb, have 3 kids).

Minimum wage in Seattle is $15 per hour.  Just for discussion, Trader Joe's cashiers in our area make something like $25/hr.  What may seem like a minimum wage job (or close to it) may not really be as low as some people think. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Tap

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Moonhawk said:

I am saying the "should even try" seems to be missing. As in, if people disagree that it is even a worthwhile goal, it doesn't make sense to talk about the economic limitations of trying. I am trying to get the "should" before going to the "how." We have seen on the thread people that disagree that working full time should afford a living wage, I know people in real life in face think that "flipping burgers" should absolutely NOT allow someone to support themselves.  So I don't think we are past that stage.

I do agree that wishful thinking isn't a replacement for realistic plans. I am not saying we should just go all-in tomorrow and raise the minimum wage, etc. There has to be sound economic theory and policies to shape the river, where it will flow, what it will flood, and where the droughts will occur, to borrow and build on the analogy. 

It may turn out the the "how" isn't possible (I don't believe that, but it's a possibility) or that the vision of what it turns out to be has to be substantially changed from our original imagination. 

But it is easy to disagree "of course we can't do A, what will happen to B if we do??" and pick apart particular arguments, and not argue in good faith and trying to work to a solution if we are disagreement of where we should go (or if one person is already assuming it is impossible). It's easy to kill ideas when you have no interest in making them work. It's "black hatting" (critiquing) an idea when we should be trying to be using only green hat or white hats (creative and informational). There is plenty of time and proper places for black hat, and constructive uses, but if it's used too early it kills the discussion, not strengthens it. 

So I don't consider it, at this stage, to be "ignoring economic theory" as much as deciding what goals our economic theory should be aiming to achieve.

eta: I don't feel like I'm disagreeing with you. I am saying "Let's make a river!" and you are saying "A river needs planning!" and neither of us are really disagreeing, just with a different focus. Unless what you are saying is "A river is dangerous and should not be attempted." or "A river is impossible to build." In which case we are disagreeing, and I am trying to convince you that we should try. 

Also, I've never liked the idea of this particular topic being a product of "soft heart" because to me this also would be a solid economic boon if achieved. Practically speaking, this would totally make the entire economy a stronger and more stable beast that serves the benefit of more people. That isn't a soft-heart-only want. (And I know you aren't using the term, and are just referencing the book. )

OK, if we are going to back up to a "should" question, what specifically is that question?  Should a worker only be hired at a job if the worker could be self-supporting on the hourly wage if the worker was working a full work week?  (If so, we need to define self-supporting and a full work week).  Or, is there some better way to ask the overarching should question?

[Moonhawk]

14 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

OK, if we are going to back up to a "should" question, what specifically is that question?  Should a worker only be hired at a job if the worker could be self-supporting on the hourly wage if the worker was working a full work week?  (If so, we need to define self-supporting and a full work week).  Or, is there some better way to ask the overarching should question?

I'd have to look at the thread to see how this question was the one landed on. Is there a reason this question is so hard to answer?

I've already responded to the idea about if only the need-money should get a full time job, the answer was no.

I've already defined what I consider self-supporting. Also a full workweek, but signaled I could be swayed on this number and am just going by societal norms.

Going higher up the concept fan would eventually land us in places like "Do people deserve basic necessities?" or "Is a government responsible for the basic needs of its people when it has the ability to do so?" (Note I did not say that the government should be *giving* the necessities) or "Is our current class system benefitting society and our economy as a whole?" and other similarly controversial questions. If you want to go up the concept fan, that's fine, but I probably won't join you since I feel like there is plenty of time already spent on one question and I am not going to start over with another.

Also, these are much harder to wrestle and if we are having trouble with this question I doubt we will get farther by moving up the concept fan. Sideways may be a better bet but I'm not feeling like doing the work to reframe the entire conversation at this point.

But I'm sure someone would be happy to join you 🙂  And I would enjoy reading with popcorn. 

[Bootsie]

16 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I'd have to look at the thread to see how this question was the one landed on. Is there a reason this question is so hard to answer?

I've already responded to the idea about if only the need-money should get a full time job, the answer was no.

I've already defined what I consider self-supporting. Also a full workweek, but signaled I could be swayed on this number and am just going by societal norms.

Going higher up the concept fan would eventually land us in places like "Do people deserve basic necessities?" or "Is a government responsible for the basic needs of its people when it has the ability to do so?" (Note I did not say that the government should be *giving* the necessities) or "Is our current class system benefitting society and our economy as a whole?" and other similarly controversial questions. If you want to go up the concept fan, that's fine, but I probably won't join you since I feel like there is plenty of time already spent on one question and I am not going to start over with another.

Also, these are much harder to wrestle and if we are having trouble with this question I doubt we will get farther by moving up the concept fan. Sideways may be a better bet but I'm not feeling like doing the work to reframe the entire conversation at this point.

But I'm sure someone would be happy to join you 🙂  And I would enjoy reading with popcorn. 

I haven't been able to keep everyone straight, as far as who posted what.  I see where you mentioned a "survival" wage rather than a "living" wage, but I am not seeing where that is defined.  I assume your mention of 40 hours was what you are referring to as a full workweek; yes, societal norms vary, and 40 hours is not a universal definition of a full work week, so I wanted to make sure.  

[Moonhawk]

35 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I haven't been able to keep everyone straight, as far as who posted what.  I see where you mentioned a "survival" wage rather than a "living" wage, but I am not seeing where that is defined.  I assume your mention of 40 hours was what you are referring to as a full workweek; yes, societal norms vary, and 40 hours is not a universal definition of a full work week, so I wanted to make sure.  

Yes, I wasn't very helpful in re-stating my definitions for you, my bad. I can come and edit this post in a bit with copy+pastes, but it won't be for a while, sorry.

eta: 

On 7/27/2020 at 12:58 PM, Moonhawk said:

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.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Moonhawk