Read a newspaper article yesterday (Chicago Trib - sorry, can’t find a link), that was discussing whether even $15/hr was a “living wage.”
I tend to be a supporter of wage/wealth parity, and am concerned about the types of jobs that will allow a decent lifestyle in today’s/tomorrow’s economy. So I started reading the article.
In the first paragraph, it described a young woman who recently got a raise to $13/hr, but was barely able to cover her “school debt, cellphone, and accumulated consumer credit debt.” I believe the young woman was under 25 and lived with her parents.
Now, I’m not saying all of those aren’t issues that warrant discussion. Is school too expensive? Are school and consumer debt too easy to get and too hard to repay? What technology is needed at what cost to “live” today?
But if I were trying to write an article making readers buy in to the concept that $15/hr might not be a living wage, I’d sure try to find someone whose financial situation were not so apparently self-inflicted.
Or am I just unusual in my perspective, and does the typical Chicago Trib reader just think, "Yeah, everyone SHOULD amass college and consumer debt, and have the latest phone, without thinking about how they can pay for all of them - and everything else."
Do you ever see a similar article in the news, which appears intended to elicit sympathy, but the fact situation they describe leaves you cold?
Did it say that she had “the latest phone”? Or did you add that?
Do you think the average 18-year-old who is being told that she needs a college degree to get better than minimum wage has the experience and wisdom to question that? Especially if there’s an implication that they will be able to get a good paying job?
Did it cover what caused her consumer debt ?
Jobs in all but a few large metropolitan areas require cars, which mean consumer debt.
Cell phones and some kind of computer are almost a must to get a job nowadays. I’m not in the market right now for a new job, but I’ve heard recent stories about how people are having problems getting jobs because they have to have an email, and if they don’t have an email, they have to have a phone to get a new one.
And I’ve seen a number of jobs that want a video conference interview, which definitely lets me out, I wouldn’t know how to do one!
Also, I don’t know what the health insurance situation is for 20 somethings, but it’s easy even with insurance to have one health problem cost thousands of dollars.
So, I personally would be sympathetic unless I found that her debt was for expensive cars, diamond jewelry and constant upgrades to her wardrobe.
If I calculate this right, according to this website, if you made 13/hour and you got 40 hours a week (doubtful), they would recommend that you spend ~$650 on rent.
According to this website: Average Rent in Chicago & Rent Prices by Neighborhood - RentCafe - less than 2% of the available apartments in Chicago would fit that budget. Mind you, that’s covering everything from fleabags to socialite penthouse suites. However, poor people are much more common than rich people, yet the vast majority of the available apartments are un-affordable to people making even twice minimum wage.
This thread has all been very specifically tied to the example in the OP so far, but the question was a general one, so I’m going to open it up with something that makes me seethe.
Thankfully doping in sport seems much reduced these days, but a few years ago there was a type of news story round these parts which was more or less a trope because it occurred so often.
British athlete tests positive; declares “I don’t know how this could possibly have happened! I did nothing wrong! There must be something wrong with the test and/or the lab is corrupt and/or incompetent and/or…(etc etc)”
UK press then circles the wagons, and pours sympathy upon the poor plucky Brit. Frequently it goes further, the tone implying that he/she has obviously been discriminated against (probably by foreigners) in some (unspecified) way and is therefore the victim in this whole sorry affair.
Of course I have examples. But I’d rather not name names, if that’s all the same to you. That said - by a (un)lucky coincidence Dillian Whyte has reportedly had a positive test in the last few days. I have no idea whether he has committed a doping offence, and I have certainly not seen any reaction from him blaming others for his present circumstances. But check out this headline: “Michael Venom Page: Dillian Whyte not the type to intentionally take performance enhancing drugs”
A local alternative paper ran an article on how increasing taxes on rental car was a bad thing. The journalist interviewed an employee of one of the car rental companies. The employee stated that a large number of their customers were local people, not travelers.
What lost my sympathy? The car rental company was Enterprise, which had agreements with insurance companies to provide the rental cars when someone needed a temporary car when their car was in the shop. And I only knew this because I had recently had an accident that resulted in needing body repairs.
Yes, but not this one. People are going to rack up school debt just trying to have enough qualifications to apply for a job. Cellphones are basically essential equipment these days, and folks with no money may have consumer debt just trying to “keep up” with the luxuries bought by the typical Buddhist monk.
I don’t have much sympathy for her either, not based on what’s in the story. She lives with her mother, apparently doesn’t contribute to the mortgage or utilities and gets health insurance through her mother. She doesn’t own a car, isn’t paying for rent or health insurance and can barely pay for her student loans , cellphone and her credit card debt. I’m left wondering how much she borrowed for college and how much credit card debt she has run up and for what.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible to have sympathy for this person - but for me , it would require facts that aren't given in the article.
Or art history, or comparative religion, or English literature, or any number of other “useless” majors people get, with no intention to preach or teach.
I also remember the “60 Minutes” story about Social Security payments being made to long-dead people, and they interviewed a woman, who IIRC was a schoolteacher and should have known better, who was about to go to prison for collecting SS on her mother for about 20 years after her death. :smack:
A decade ago, it was some organization having all their Christmas presents stolen and the community rallied, until it was revealed that most of those were inside jobs.
I read an article on the Central Park Five that wasn’t satisfied with pointing out the injustice of forced confessions and seemed to be suggesting that the only reason that they were arrested by police was because of racism.
I also read an article about the Michael Jackson sex abuse accusations that was trying to make the argument that if some of Jackson’s accusers were clearly scammers, then that’s just proof that he was an evil genius who selected victims on the basis that nobody would believe them.
Maybe I don’t understand your point, but I don’t think it is unheard of for practiced pedophiles to specifically choose victims who are for one reason or another from families that might be less than reputable (say the Mom is a junkie or Dad has a criminal rap sheet) in part so that any of their possible alligations can be deflected by saying “Yeah, you clearly can’t believe anything this family says, they are all a bunch of XYZ!!!”
I just saw one of those the other day, and thought of the Dope. Some autistic boy’s mother had the whole class invited, one little girl showed up, so a high school football team came and gave him a helmet and jersey.