Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kroem wrote:
I think this thread needs some positive vibes!

I would suggest that people are getting a better handle on what their work life balance should look like, and are realising that chasing the highest wage isn't necessarily the be all and end all.

Companies are getting on board as well and realising that 'more money' is quite a crude motivational lever to pull. You can attract and retain the best talent more effectivley with things like flexible working hours, working from home, personal development, travel opportunities etc.

Money is the baseline, while the rest is motivational for above and beyond.

Nonsense.

As a worker, I count myself lucky to not only earn a solid wage, but also enjoye seriously good benefits.

Anyone that doesn’t enjoy these things?

Get. Angry.

There’s some arse making scads off cash off of your sweat, and parroting down the line the virtues of hard work, whilst doing none of their own, yet buying their third or fourth house.

Seriously folks.

Get. Angry.

They’re not smarter than you. They certainly don’t work harder than you. They got lucky, and choose to keep you down.

Realise your strength, and those of your fellow workers. There are far, far too few ‘managers’ in the world that can actually do, or would even want to do, the day job.

Thats's what I'm getting at. People now want a good wage and good benefits, not an amazing wage that comes with loads of stress and no benefits.
So that could contribute to wage growth slow down.

I'm sure if most of us moved to London we would get a big pay hike, but the drop in quality of life wouldn't be worth the extra money!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could even go full hippy mode and suggest that as a society we are judging our own self worth, and that of others, less on the size of our wage packets than we did before which is slowing down the rat race!

I do work in London.

I’ve got a career going I can’t replicate outside of the capital.

I’ve also just been signed off for two weeks due to stress.

Nobody should have to work this hard just to have a roof over their head.

Nobody.

Oh whoops! You said you are Scottish so I thought you spent your days wandering the highland glens, not battling through the tube system!

I expect you meet a lot more ambitious people than me then, the prevailing attitude round where I live is that it is worth being paid less to live in such a beautiful part of the world

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Nonsense.

As a worker, I count myself lucky to not only earn a solid wage, but also enjoye seriously good benefits.

Anyone that doesn’t enjoy these things?

Get. Angry.

There’s some arse making scads off cash off of your sweat, and parroting down the line the virtues of hard work, whilst doing none of their own, yet buying their third or fourth house.

Seriously folks.

Get. Angry.

They’re not smarter than you. They certainly don’t work harder than you. They got lucky, and choose to keep you down.

Realise your strength, and those of your fellow workers. There are far, far too few ‘managers’ in the world that can actually do, or would even want to do, the day job.

What percent of politicians do you think could make it a year working a minimum wage job full time? A third? A quarter? A tenth? Personally I think I'd bet 15%; there's at least some with the drive to act/achieve that they could make it that long.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Nonsense.

As a worker, I count myself lucky to not only earn a solid wage, but also enjoye seriously good benefits.

Anyone that doesn’t enjoy these things?

Get. Angry.

There’s some arse making scads off cash off of your sweat, and parroting down the line the virtues of hard work, whilst doing none of their own, yet buying their third or fourth house.

Seriously folks.

Get. Angry.

They’re not smarter than you. They certainly don’t work harder than you. They got lucky, and choose to keep you down.

Realise your strength, and those of your fellow workers. There are far, far too few ‘managers’ in the world that can actually do, or would even want to do, the day job.

What percent of politicians do you think could make it a year working a minimum wage job full time? A third? A quarter? A tenth? Personally I think I'd bet 15%; there's at least some with the drive to act/achieve that they could make it that long.

I think this depends on what kind of politicians you are talking about. Are we talking state representative or higher? If we are talking Governors, Senators, and Cabinet people, yeah, I'd agree with your estimate. However, there are a lot of lower ranking political people that work hard. Being a politician is not their primary 9-5 job. I know a handful that grew up in the area that worked their butts off to make decent lives.

That's a good point. To narrow it down and avoid going into politics specifically let's redefine to Senate, House, CEOs, and Boards of Directors.

 Easy E wrote:
1,2,3 sound like Krugman's theories.

2,5, and 6 sound more right leaning.

4 sounds pretty out there as an immediate cause, but as you say may have some predictive power.

Thank you for sharing.

Krugman I believe has now come to the party on 1 & 3, but he's got there late. Remember Krugman is international trade by profession and Keynesian by politics. This stuff is more market or instituional, so guys like DeLong have been leading it.

5 is not right leaning. It is saying wages might not be determined by the market. If true it opens the door for a whole lot of socialism.

4 is a long term thing. A real long term thing. Keynes was talking about 4. Still hasn't happened


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know, the more I see this thread, the more I think, ‘why aren’t we rising now?

We aren't rising because we have dinner and a bed for the night.

Flat wage growth is unjustified and gets people angry, but it doesn't get them throwing Molotovs at police cars.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know, the more I see this thread, the more I think, ‘why aren’t we rising now?

We aren't rising because we have dinner and a bed for the night.

Flat wage growth is unjustified and gets people angry, but it doesn't get them throwing Molotovs at police cars.

Do flat wages and growing income inequality get them to throw Molotovs?

Maybe we will see?

We're not rising? What is Trump, what is Brexit, what is Five Star and the League, what is the AfD, what is the Front National, what is PIS and Orban? What is Erdogan, what is civil war in Syria?

We are rising. The inequality caused by the financial crash and recession and the way our neoliberal political class protected wealth and privledge is experiencing a massive backlash across the world.

I wish we were rising in a smarter, more productive way. But we are rising.

 Da Boss wrote:
We're not rising? What is Trump, what is Brexit, what is Five Star and the League, what is the AfD, what is the Front National, what is PIS and Orban? What is Erdogan, what is civil war in Syria?

We are rising. The inequality caused by the financial crash and recession and the way our neoliberal political class protected wealth and privledge is experiencing a massive backlash across the world.

I wish we were rising in a smarter, more productive way. But we are rising.

Uprisings are rarely 'smart'. 'Smart' is not how you get people to rise up. The only way to get people to rise up is by shouting really, really loud. And make sure that the messages are simple and feel 'good'. Better even, don't bother with messages longer than a few sentences at all. Inspiring slogans are all you need.

We aren't rising because we are here. The minute we're so worried about this that we're not talking back and forth at each other on a forum but actually going out to eat the rich, then we're rising.

Right now? We're just bitter and grumpy and this is the best we have. It's the truth and you know it. To say we're pushing for some great movement is a lie.

My dad's generation killed the union. And in the future I dunno if when it gets to the point we'll even be able to fight back. Union's needed secrecy and violence and now the wealthy use social media and the law as tools to stamp us down.

I don't see it getting better. We had our chance but the dinosaurs of my country decided instead to hand over the reins to thieves and con men who froth at the mouth to take away the things our grandfather's bled for.

Because their so desperate to look down their nose at other people. Because people don't look in their neighbors bowl anymore to make sure they have enough. No no, that's socialist nonsense and it's evil.

Now they get angry if they don't have more. feth this world.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But seriously. Enough is enough. Marxist as a I am, there has to be a happy medium between my (ultimately impracticable) ideal and the crap we have to live with now?

From my point of view, many people cannot imagine a life or are capable to cultivate a mindset where they aren't participating in the rat race. If there'd be any rational thought left in my country we'd be rioting over the foolishness of the modern system, but we prefer to stay foolish. I cannot fathom a reason behind all this.

Because there are no waiters in LA, only actors waiting for their break.

Most people don't have a problem with the system, just their place in it. They don't really want to break everything down, because then how will they have anything when they get rich?

There is nothing wrong with having a dream and wanting to live it. I cannot comment on the LA - US, locally however, the employers behaviour is nothing short than atrocious.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Because there are no waiters in LA, only actors waiting for their break.

Most people don't have a problem with the system, just their place in it. They don't really want to break everything down, because then how will they have anything when they get rich?

I disagree. Most people don't understand what is happening. Most people like to believe that everyone has the chance to do well and get rich, that all you have to do is work hard and it will come to you, and all they are doing wrong is not working quite hard enough or in quite the right way, or they are but it just needs more time.

The reality is that background has more impact on it than anything, followed by blind luck. You just need to look at school outcomes. There have been research done time and again on the impact of public school in the UK vs state school. Students leaving the same course with the same grades from the same university continue to earn less if they went to a state school vs a private education. There may be many reasons for this, but the basic fact is that those who have a paid for education do better, despite having the same educational outcome. The same goes for people starting companies. People like to continue the myth of the self made millionaire, but in reality most "self made" people come from backgrounds where they are able to take risks and gain connections. Just take a look at Hollywood or the music industry. People like to pretend anyone can make it, but look at any famous mission or actor and you will see one or both parents work in the industry.

We don't see revolutions because....

1. There is a sizeable middle class, and as a percentage more people in the middle class are moving up than moving down.

2. We live in the most prosperous time in history. People are too last to revolt, especially if they know they will lose out on common comforts and luxuries.

 Kroem wrote:
I think this thread needs some positive vibes!

I would suggest that people are getting a better handle on what their work life balance should look like, and are realising that chasing the highest wage isn't necessarily the be all and end all.

Companies are getting on board as well and realising that 'more money' is quite a crude motivational lever to pull. You can attract and retain the best talent more effectivley with things like flexible working hours, working from home, personal development, travel opportunities etc.

Those are all lovely things when you're working an already well paid white-collar job and would broadly be considered "middle class" economically(in the non-American sense, ie well-paid professionals, managers, midlevel politicians etc - the USA has a ludicrously broad definition of middle class), but wages haven't just been stagnating for those jobs. Flexible hours, working from home, and personal development mean nothing when your job doesn't pay enough to cover your living expenses.

Once you're coasting along on two or three times the average wage sure, there are all kinds of things companies can offer other than wage increases, but if you're one of the comparatively massive block of the population earning substantially less than the average(or even the minimum, in many cases), then what you want is more goddamn money and it hasn't been happening. And it isn't going to start happening again either, because the next wave of automation won't just be extensive, it will also begin eating into the job sectors at both the top and the bottom of the labour market that automation has traditionally displaced workers into - creation, programming, and maintenance of the new industrial technology at the top, and menial service jobs at the bottom. Not by making whole jobs obsolete, but by radically reducing the amount of people needed to accomplish any given amount of work; one programmer will be capable of outputting the work of four or five people under the current paradigm, call centres will be able to further reduce the number of actual humans since the automated systems will be able to handle more complex interactions, cafes and eateries and supermarkets can cut down to just a manager and maybe one or two staff if they're really big, and the warehouses supplying everyone will only require a manager and one or two techs to run the whole affair. Those comfortable with the present state of affairs just blindly assert that things will self-correct as they have in the past, but in the past waves of automation have always generated at least as many jobs as they've destroyed and so on the scale of an economy even as individuals are screwed over by it the system as a whole remains in balance, but there's no indication that's going to happen this time, everything points to a significant net loss of jobs.

Frankly I only see three likely outcomes if we continue on the present trajectory - it gets so bad there's an actual proper uprising and the whole system is torn down to be replaced with who knows what, or it gets that bad but the extant power elite manage to stamp out any potential uprising before it starts in which case the present wave of proto-fascists will lead us into full-fat cattle carts and secret police fascism, or some politician somewhere will muster up just enough braincells and charisma to sell both the public and the power elite on something like a Basic Income.

Let's get some things clear when it comes to "paying the bills". Yes, in the 1950's a family could get by on one adult working a full time job.

That family also only had one car (sometimes none), one land line phone, one TV (no cable or satellite), 20% less square footage in their home, no computer, no wifi, no cell phone, no internet, ate out less, went on vacation less, and had significantly smaller wardrobes.

We are a nation of mass-consumers that has fallen into the habit of buying ourselves into happiness. If we were less inclined to these ways we'd likely be happier.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's get some things clear when it comes to "paying the bills". Yes, in the 1950's a family could get by on one adult working a full time job.

That family also only had one car (sometimes none), one land line phone, one TV (no cable or satellite), 20% less square footage in their home, no computer, no wifi, no cell phone, no internet, ate out less, went on vacation less, and had significantly smaller wardrobes.

We are a nation of mass-consumers that has fallen into the habit of buying ourselves into happiness. If we were less inclined to these ways we'd likely be happier.

I call bs on that. Do you have any proof any of what you said is true?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's get some things clear when it comes to "paying the bills". Yes, in the 1950's a family could get by on one adult working a full time job.

That family also only had one car (sometimes none), one land line phone, one TV (no cable or satellite), 20% less square footage in their home, no computer, no wifi, no cell phone, no internet, ate out less, went on vacation less, and had significantly smaller wardrobes.

We are a nation of mass-consumers that has fallen into the habit of buying ourselves into happiness. If we were less inclined to these ways we'd likely be happier.

I call bs on that. Do you have any proof any of what you said is true?

Of course they don't, it's the usual "people can't be poor any more, we have microwaves and iphones now" nonsense. The same "kids today, just buy less of your avocado toast!" guff.

A full-time minimum wage job in the UK pays ~£14,250 a year before tax and national insurance which would be ~792 given the personal allowance, so around 13,450 a year or about 1120 a month.

Assuming you rent a room in a shared flat you'll end up spending about 400-600 on rent and council tax in most cities, more in London. Another 50 or so for energy bills assuming you watch how much you use the central heating in winter. Transport costs assuming you stick exclusively to public transportation could be anywhere from 60 quid a month for a bus pass to a couple of hundred if you need to use a train to get to work. 200 quid a month for shopping assuming you're reasonably frugal while not going for completely gak tier stuff or making everything yourself from scratch which isn't practicable for most folk. So your absolute most basic living expenses required to keep you alive and enable you to hold down a job will leave you with a grand total of 100-200 a month, out of which has to come all non-essential travel, phone & internet access, any small shreds of guilty joy you can wring out of the cheapest night out you can manage without seeming like a cheapskate to your mates etc, and you can forget saving for retirement or putting money aside for a house deposit or to buy pricey appliances or huge wardrobes of clothes( ).

Most folk earn in the 16-18k range, so on the face of it they have a bit more money, but get a flat of your own with your partner and the car you need for that better job and you eat up a big chunk of the extra, nevermind if you want kids or an occasional holiday or, god forbid, you want to take on a mortgage.

And even minimum wage is a best case scenario for a lot of folk. If you're on the minimum wage at an hourly rate with a zero-hours contract, you'll be lucky to get close to the theoretical monthly amount for minimum wage, and though many of them are spectacularly bad ideas designed to paper over the cracks by governments too afraid of being branded as "left wing" by tabloid scum like tax credits, what little support was there from the government for those on low incomes has been decimated.

People are having to go to food banks and ask for special parcels that don't have anything in them that needs to be cooked because they can't afford to run their fething gas oven. We're well past "modern culture is just too materialist maaaaaan" or "young people today ain't got no gumption I tells ya! get a holda' them thar bootstraps and get haulin'!" rubbish at this point, but some folk just refuse to acknowledge it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's get some things clear when it comes to "paying the bills". Yes, in the 1950's a family could get by on one adult working a full time job.

That family also only had one car (sometimes none), one land line phone, one TV (no cable or satellite), 20% less square footage in their home, no computer, no wifi, no cell phone, no internet, ate out less, went on vacation less, and had significantly smaller wardrobes.

We are a nation of mass-consumers that has fallen into the habit of buying ourselves into happiness. If we were less inclined to these ways we'd likely be happier.

I call bs on that. Do you have any proof any of what you said is true?

Yes, yes I do. In fact, it looks like I may have UNDERSTATED some of it.

http://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_Many_people_had_TV_in_1940%27s_-_1950%27s

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/04/15/americans-spend-more-on-dining-out-than-groceries-for-first-time-ever.html

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw182supp.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch5.pdf

I take it you'll accept it if I don't provide links that show that cell phones, cable TV, satellites, commercial WiFi, the internet, and home computers didn't exist in the 1950's.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's get some things clear when it comes to "paying the bills". Yes, in the 1950's a family could get by on one adult working a full time job.

That family also only had one car (sometimes none), one land line phone, one TV (no cable or satellite), 20% less square footage in their home, no computer, no wifi, no cell phone, no internet, ate out less, went on vacation less, and had significantly smaller wardrobes.

We are a nation of mass-consumers that has fallen into the habit of buying ourselves into happiness. If we were less inclined to these ways we'd likely be happier.

I call bs on that. Do you have any proof any of what you said is true?

Yes, yes I do. In fact, it looks like I may have UNDERSTATED some of it.

http://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_Many_people_had_TV_in_1940%27s_-_1950%27s

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/04/15/americans-spend-more-on-dining-out-than-groceries-for-first-time-ever.html

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw182supp.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch5.pdf

I take it you'll accept it if I don't provide links that show that cell phones, cable TV, satellites, commercial WiFi, the internet, and home computers didn't exist in the 1950's.

this is an interesring point that does bear some discussion.

I suspect the relative price of many of those items has dropped, leading to greater proliferation. On hand, I can look at prices of things we used to sell and adjust them for inflation. We sold microwaves for $255 in the late 70's, today that would be over a grand, but I can get one at Target or off Amazon for $50-80 today.

But looking at my grandparents home in San Diego, they raised a 6 person family in third the square footage of what my parents live in alone now.

And interesting note to think about.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's get some things clear when it comes to "paying the bills". Yes, in the 1950's a family could get by on one adult working a full time job.

That family also only had one car (sometimes none), one land line phone, one TV (no cable or satellite), 20% less square footage in their home, no computer, no wifi, no cell phone, no internet, ate out less, went on vacation less, and had significantly smaller wardrobes.

We are a nation of mass-consumers that has fallen into the habit of buying ourselves into happiness. If we were less inclined to these ways we'd likely be happier.

I call bs on that. Do you have any proof any of what you said is true?

Yes, yes I do. In fact, it looks like I may have UNDERSTATED some of it.

http://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_Many_people_had_TV_in_1940%27s_-_1950%27s

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/04/15/americans-spend-more-on-dining-out-than-groceries-for-first-time-ever.html

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw182supp.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch5.pdf

I take it you'll accept it if I don't provide links that show that cell phones, cable TV, satellites, commercial WiFi, the internet, and home computers didn't exist in the 1950's.

I'm sorry but do you ask rape victims what they were wearing? The chrome plated balls on you to come in here and make theses statements is astounding.

Yeah, you know what? Clearly I need to give up my cell phone and internet access, even though without a cellphone I will be a social pariah and without internet access I can't even apply for a job at Wendy's. Because doing so will then result in my boss, who doesn't believe I deserve health insurance and PTO/Vacation while he takes at least two vacations a year, to pay me a wage equal to the standard of living to 2018 instead of 1988. Hallelujah for providing the answer.

Your statements are so disingenuous it is painful to be civil to you. You insist on blaming the people at the bottom of the ladder when this is clearly the fault of the people at the top. When literally all it would take is one donkey-cave to say 'Hey you know what, take my several million bonus/record breaking profits this year and improve our wages." That's it. It has nothing to do with managing the slave wages you're given and everything to do with the callous uncontrolled greed at the top.

The absolute gall of you to suggest otherwise is damning of you on a personal level. To believe that these stagnant wages are the fault of the people who work for them because they don't budget well? I am at a loss for words that I can say to you that would not get me banned.

Is the only way you feel good about your position in life by looking down your nose at others? Does that make you feel superior? Do you rankle and growl at the idea of minimum wage increasing because then those damn slackers down at the McDonalds won't be struggling? I got news for you pal, wages go up we all win, and while wages have been stagnant in this country for a long time, inflation has not. The reason we have to make do with so little isn't because we're bad at budgeting it's because everything has gotten more expensive while our buying power dwindles every year.

I don't know how to end this because I am just beyond ready to get banned but I hope, I hope people see this and realize what kind of bull you're trying to sling.

How dare you sir. How dare you.

The 1950s were a great time to live in the US.

If you were white.

And male.

@ lonestarr777 Whoa there- he may have called this generation soft and greedy, but I don't think that's remotely close to anything like rapists.

@cuda1179 Fair enough- let us explore cost of living then.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-cost-of-living-in-florida

TLDR- Rent for studio apartment- 1223
Electricity- 129
Food- 271 per month- 1 adult, no kids
Catastrophic Insurance- 249


So before we get into luxury items, that's 1872. Minimum wage is 8.25 here. Working 40 hours a week at that rate, your gross income per month before taxes is 1320.

I appreciate the idea that there are far more luxuries, and indeed, far more things we term necessities nowadays- but even so, I say that if working full time at minimum wage cannot equal the cost of living then there is a deeper issue than excessive internet expense or avocado consumption.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's get some things clear when it comes to "paying the bills". Yes, in the 1950's a family could get by on one adult working a full time job.

That family also only had one car (sometimes none), one land line phone, one TV (no cable or satellite), 20% less square footage in their home, no computer, no wifi, no cell phone, no internet, ate out less, went on vacation less, and had significantly smaller wardrobes.

We are a nation of mass-consumers that has fallen into the habit of buying ourselves into happiness. If we were less inclined to these ways we'd likely be happier.

I call bs on that. Do you have any proof any of what you said is true?

Yes, yes I do. In fact, it looks like I may have UNDERSTATED some of it.

http://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_Many_people_had_TV_in_1940%27s_-_1950%27s

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/04/15/americans-spend-more-on-dining-out-than-groceries-for-first-time-ever.html

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw182supp.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch5.pdf

I take it you'll accept it if I don't provide links that show that cell phones, cable TV, satellites, commercial WiFi, the internet, and home computers didn't exist in the 1950's.

Did you look at those links?

The first is a link to average house sizes. Thats it. It doesnt discuss who is buying them, renting them, or having them built. Remember, Millenials are killing the housing market because we cannot afford to buy them!.

The second is a link to how many TVs were owned at the time. Considering it was a brand new technology and ownership went from 6 million to 60 million in a decade, I would say a lot of baby boomers splurged on them.

The third link ends by saying that companies like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco were not recorded in the findings. Three major grocery retailers were absent. Yeeeeeeaaaaaaah.

Your fourth link didnt work for me.

Five is a link to a book chapter I have to download. Not going to, because my phones internet is awful.

Do you have links to sources that back up your claims? Average home size being larger is not showing much if people are not buying or renting those homes.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@ lonestarr777 Whoa there- he may have called this generation soft and greedy, but I don't think that's remotely close to anything like rapists.

@cuda1179 Fair enough- let us explore cost of living then.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-cost-of-living-in-florida

TLDR- Rent for studio apartment- 1223
Electricity- 129
Food- 271 per month- 1 adult, no kids
Catastrophic Insurance- 249


So before we get into luxury items, that's 1872. Minimum wage is 8.25 here. Working 40 hours a week at that rate, your gross income per month before taxes is 1320.

I appreciate the idea that there are far more luxuries, and indeed, far more things we term necessities nowadays- but even so, I say that if working full time at minimum wage cannot equal the cost of living then there is a deeper issue than excessive internet expense or avocado consumption.

While Florida is pretty expensive, this gets the point across. Just LIVING on minimum wage is impossible, much less saving up for the education to get anything better. This is where 'blame the poor' arguments always flounder. In the eighties it could barely be done. Now? Nope.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@ lonestarr777 Whoa there- he may have called this generation soft and greedy, but I don't think that's remotely close to anything like rapists.

@cuda1179 Fair enough- let us explore cost of living then.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-cost-of-living-in-florida

TLDR- Rent for studio apartment- 1223
Electricity- 129
Food- 271 per month- 1 adult, no kids
Catastrophic Insurance- 249


So before we get into luxury items, that's 1872. Minimum wage is 8.25 here. Working 40 hours a week at that rate, your gross income per month before taxes is 1320.

I appreciate the idea that there are far more luxuries, and indeed, far more things we term necessities nowadays- but even so, I say that if working full time at minimum wage cannot equal the cost of living then there is a deeper issue than excessive internet expense or avocado consumption.

While Florida is pretty expensive, this gets the point across. Just LIVING on minimum wage is impossible, much less saving up for the education to get anything better. This is where 'blame the poor' arguments always flounder. In the eighties it could barely be done. Now? Nope.

One I heard was "those are just supposed to be starting positions before people move on to something better." He didn't have a response when I asked him what or how.