I know one of the first responses to this is that he should move closer to the job, but the man has house payments and selling a house is difficult these days, plus there’s a good chance he’s under water.
I think he has a point when he complains about the execs making so much more and getting big bonuses but then telling the workers that the company has to cut back because of the economy.
The man has a full time job and works hard trying to survive and raise his family. He’s seems to be doing everything right, but he has to choose between feeding his daughter and being able to get to work.
Yes, I know that it’s possible that this particular article is made up or exaggerated, but does anyone really believe that there aren’t people in situations exactly like this?
What’s the answer here? A union? An increase in the minimum wage? Ignoring it and telling people like this “too bad, so sorry”?
That one. Given any economic situation, I could contrive a scenario where someone plays Bad Luck Chuck. This guy lives 45 frickin’ minutes from work and I’m supposed to feel bad for him? Furthermore, I’m supposed to believe this $10 in gas is more than he makes in a day?
Boo fucking hoo. We make money. We spend money. We make sacrifices in between. It’s called life, and it ain’t free.
I have nothing positive to say here. When my company moved to save money on rent, I moved too, both to save money on rent and to save on gas. I could do something like that because I don’t have a family, so I don’t want a house, etc. This is most assuredly not a choice people should generally have to make. We need families.
Stuff like this (notably high level management using economic reasons to do whatever they pleased, underpay workers and so forth) is exactly the reason unions came about.
A house, you say? He purchased a thrifty 700 sq foot house, right? No, probably not?
I live in a 700 sq foot apartment and I make more than his supervisors. Which isn’t to say that the attitude of the salaried employees isn’t crass (if it’s accurate), but there’s blame to go all around here. (A house at $8 an hour? Really?)
I live in D.C., so I feel ya, but in place where traffic makes 45 the norm, it also doesn’t cost $10 to go round-trip. If you get 20 miles to the gallon in city traffic, $10 would be 30 miles each way.
I live in MA and plenty of people commute in from New Hampshire to the Boston area. Even if they don’t work in the city proper, it’s a long commute. A classmate of mine at school drove an hour and a half each day. He also had a family, which is why he didn’t just pick up and move willy-nilly I’d guess (we didn’t discuss such things).
He doesn’t have to be CEO, he just needs to have a skill. He said himself that his company calls people like him “unskilled labor.” That means he’s cheap and replaceable. Crappy job skills = crappy job. It’s the way it should be. I don’t have contempt for people with no skills. I truly don’t. I don’t even have contempt for those that bitch about theses jobs. But I do have contempt for those that think it’s unfair and those that think his lack of skills came about my happenstance.
This is the human face of stagnant wages. Expenses have gone up, paychecks have not, for decades. But don’t worry, Mitt Romney says we got a social safety net. And he will mend it with his silver thread and golden needles if it’s torn in places.
The problem here is that the company is apparently not doing poorly and yet they cry poor and make things more and more difficult for their workers while enriching management and throwing parties for them.
Also, my father was an unskilled (other than what he learned on the job) laborer and he managed to own a house and raise three sons, so I don’t necessarily buy the idea that unskilled labor should equal paltry wages.
Your father doesn’t sound like he was unskilled. Maybe when he started but not as he acquired skills on the job. There’s a lot to be said about on the job training.
Isn’t it one of the causes of the current financial crisis that people bought more house than they could afford, and banks let them do it?
My Inner Economist says: If the company really isn’t paying enough that people like him can afford to work there, then they’re going to have trouble finding employees who will work there, and the problem should correct itself. Is my Inner Economist wrong?
The thread title is “living wage”, which is the idea that the minimum wage should be enough to provide a family the ability to live on. The implication being that $8 an hour is not enough (even if it is above the current minimum wage).
Hunger also is self-correcting. When you starve too much, you aren’t hungry anymore because you’re dead. Is nature wrong?
I don’t want to live in a world where I guy who wants to work for his family is considered an idiot for having a family. People who want to work and want to make more people are exactly the kind of people I want to support. What kind of society is this?
In your example of the OP, how is the company making it more difficult for the worker mentioned to commute? Did they move the store where he works?
I suppose he could organize a union if he likes - it’s perfectly legal the last time I checked. I don’t think an increase in the minimum wage is going to help - he isn’t making minimum wage.
A living wage is still a silly idea, partly because it bogs down in definitions. This guy (or maybe the OP) want a living wage that covers a car payment, a house payment, and gas money for a 45 minute commute.
It’s always going to be the case that people get caught living beyond their means when a recession hits. If we passed a law mandating wage increases that keep pace with the increase in oil prices, a) we will continue to use oil and contribute to global warming and send money to the Saudis, and b) people will have no incentive to avoid a 45 minute commute. Or an hour. Or buy an SUV. Which raises your car payment, and uses more gas. So you need another raise.
Yes, it sucks to be poor and have a grunt job. This is news?