Opportunities for poor

[Marvin the Martian]

Many of our disagreements between liberals and conservatives center on government policy toward the poor. And when we discuss the minimum wage, the point is often made by conservatives that people move up and out of minimum wage jobs into better jobs. They suggest the wage doesn't need changed as it really isn't going to help the family of four but will cost teens looking for their first job.

First, there is this 538 article It’s Getting Harder To Move Beyond A Minimum-Wage Job. It points out that nearly 1 in 3 people who start at minimum wage are still there a year later. More from the article:

Older minimum-wage workers, perhaps unsurprisingly, face an even tougher time. More than 30 percent of those ages 25 or older are still working for minimum wage after a year. And more than 20 percent of those working for the minimum wage in 2008 were still in such jobs after about three years. Even those who did get raises often didn’t get big ones: Nearly 70 percent were earning within 10 percent of the minimum wage after three years. That suggests that workers who are forced to take low-wage jobs later in life have a particularly hard time escaping them.
​

The Atlantic has an excellent article, It Is Expensive to Be Poor. Please read it as I will not do it justice. But there are systemic issues that trap people into these jobs. For example, many minimum wage positions flat out require flexible hours. That makes it much harder to take classes/training to move out and much harder to find child care (if needed). Further, many people in minimum wage looking to rent need a very hefty deposit. It is tough to scrape together money at one time to make such a payment, so for them spending more money monthly on a residential motel. Or they can afford a place without a stove and fridge, but then they are trapped into eating what they find at the convenience store. And of course, if they ever slightly fall behind and get a payday loan, things snowball.

And in this last category, let me tie it into health insurance. Are refundable tax credits really going to make insurance affordable? IF the refund comes after the person makes a large payment, where do people with absolutely nothing get the money to make the payment in the first place? IF that is really the plan being considered, our representatives should spend a week living poor to see the issue. If all you can afford is to live cash in-cash out, any large purchase is just flat out impossible.

Now of course we get to solutions, and I'm not sure I have a good one. I'd like to see the minimum wage indexed to cost of living for an area. A $15 minimum in rural Kentucky probably is a job killer. Less so in NYC or SF. Some sort of three tiered minimum wage by county cost of living reviewed ever census. I've thought of perhaps a minimum wage that lasts six months for an employee then a second minimum wage that is higher. But I suspect all that would do is get places to fire workers every six months.

But I do think we can underestimate the difficulties of crawling out of a poverty cycle. So much of what our society is requires either cash on hand, or available credit. Aside from the items above, look at transportation. Affording a car, licensing the car and insuring the car is awful hard on minimum wage. So people at that level require mass transit. In much of America, mass transit is pretty bad. For people required to work flex hours, a bus system that stops at 6pm, or 9pm, may as well not exist.

And this hasn't even hit on the other half of the problem, are there good middle class jobs waiting on those people to move up to?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Many of our disagreements between liberals and conservatives center on government policy toward the poor. And when we discuss the minimum wage, the point is often made by conservatives that people move up and out of minimum wage jobs into better jobs. They suggest the wage doesn't need changed as it really isn't going to help the family of four but will cost teens looking for their first job.

First, there is this 538 article It’s Getting Harder To Move Beyond A Minimum-Wage Job. It points out that nearly 1 in 3 people who start at minimum wage are still there a year later. More from the article:

Older minimum-wage workers, perhaps unsurprisingly, face an even tougher time. More than 30 percent of those ages 25 or older are still working for minimum wage after a year. And more than 20 percent of those working for the minimum wage in 2008 were still in such jobs after about three years. Even those who did get raises often didn’t get big ones: Nearly 70 percent were earning within 10 percent of the minimum wage after three years. That suggests that workers who are forced to take low-wage jobs later in life have a particularly hard time escaping them.
​

The Atlantic has an excellent article, It Is Expensive to Be Poor. Please read it as I will not do it justice. But there are systemic issues that trap people into these jobs. For example, many minimum wage positions flat out require flexible hours. That makes it much harder to take classes/training to move out and much harder to find child care (if needed). Further, many people in minimum wage looking to rent need a very hefty deposit. It is tough to scrape together money at one time to make such a payment, so for them spending more money monthly on a residential motel. Or they can afford a place without a stove and fridge, but then they are trapped into eating what they find at the convenience store. And of course, if they ever slightly fall behind and get a payday loan, things snowball.

And in this last category, let me tie it into health insurance. Are refundable tax credits really going to make insurance affordable? IF the refund comes after the person makes a large payment, where do people with absolutely nothing get the money to make the payment in the first place? IF that is really the plan being considered, our representatives should spend a week living poor to see the issue. If all you can afford is to live cash in-cash out, any large purchase is just flat out impossible.

Now of course we get to solutions, and I'm not sure I have a good one. I'd like to see the minimum wage indexed to cost of living for an area. A $15 minimum in rural Kentucky probably is a job killer. Less so in NYC or SF. Some sort of three tiered minimum wage by county cost of living reviewed ever census. I've thought of perhaps a minimum wage that lasts six months for an employee then a second minimum wage that is higher. But I suspect all that would do is get places to fire workers every six months.

But I do think we can underestimate the difficulties of crawling out of a poverty cycle. So much of what our society is requires either cash on hand, or available credit. Aside from the items above, look at transportation. Affording a car, licensing the car and insuring the car is awful hard on minimum wage. So people at that level require mass transit. In much of America, mass transit is pretty bad. For people required to work flex hours, a bus system that stops at 6pm, or 9pm, may as well not exist.

And this hasn't even hit on the other half of the problem, are there good middle class jobs waiting on those people to move up to?

Wendy's announced this week that they are going to be installing kiosks to order your food in trial locations. The question is soon going to become not how much should pay be for those jobs but whether they should even exist.

Further down the line they are developing legal and accounting programs to handle quite a few of the things that are handled by white collar workers.

Sky net is not far behind....

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Wendy's announced this week that they are going to be installing kiosks to order your food in trial locations. The question is soon going to become not how much should pay be for those jobs but whether they should even exist.

Further down the line they are developing legal and accounting programs to handle quite a few of the things that are handled by white collar workers.

Sky net is not far behind....

I am all in on the belief that we are heading to a jobless* future. People keep telling me that's crazy, there are all the jobs a computer/robot could NEVER do. But it wasn't long ago that we said a computer could never beat a human at chess, then Go, then Texas Hold'em and a computer has won all three.

Gene Roddenberry refused to go there, hence why Scotty kept having to risk his life instead of sending a robot into the warp coils. The reality is, the USS Enterprise would have been entirely computer/robot crewed. Which has me thinking, most of our movies like Arrival have aliens coming here. Is an Alien really going to land and risk who knows what bacteria or virus? We ought to have sci fi movies showing un"manned" alien ships arriving.

*Of course not 100% jobless. I'm not sure humans will enjoy robot basketball. But even if the total number of jobs just stays exactly where it is today and population keeps growing, what happens? At some point in the not too distant future we are facing major social upheaval .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Many of our disagreements between liberals and conservatives center on government policy toward the poor. And when we discuss the minimum wage, the point is often made by conservatives that people move up and out of minimum wage jobs into better jobs. They suggest the wage doesn't need changed as it really isn't going to help the family of four but will cost teens looking for their first job.

First, there is this 538 article It’s Getting Harder To Move Beyond A Minimum-Wage Job. It points out that nearly 1 in 3 people who start at minimum wage are still there a year later. More from the article:

Older minimum-wage workers, perhaps unsurprisingly, face an even tougher time. More than 30 percent of those ages 25 or older are still working for minimum wage after a year. And more than 20 percent of those working for the minimum wage in 2008 were still in such jobs after about three years. Even those who did get raises often didn’t get big ones: Nearly 70 percent were earning within 10 percent of the minimum wage after three years. That suggests that workers who are forced to take low-wage jobs later in life have a particularly hard time escaping them.
​

The Atlantic has an excellent article, It Is Expensive to Be Poor. Please read it as I will not do it justice. But there are systemic issues that trap people into these jobs. For example, many minimum wage positions flat out require flexible hours. That makes it much harder to take classes/training to move out and much harder to find child care (if needed). Further, many people in minimum wage looking to rent need a very hefty deposit. It is tough to scrape together money at one time to make such a payment, so for them spending more money monthly on a residential motel. Or they can afford a place without a stove and fridge, but then they are trapped into eating what they find at the convenience store. And of course, if they ever slightly fall behind and get a payday loan, things snowball.

And in this last category, let me tie it into health insurance. Are refundable tax credits really going to make insurance affordable? IF the refund comes after the person makes a large payment, where do people with absolutely nothing get the money to make the payment in the first place? IF that is really the plan being considered, our representatives should spend a week living poor to see the issue. If all you can afford is to live cash in-cash out, any large purchase is just flat out impossible.

Now of course we get to solutions, and I'm not sure I have a good one. I'd like to see the minimum wage indexed to cost of living for an area. A $15 minimum in rural Kentucky probably is a job killer. Less so in NYC or SF. Some sort of three tiered minimum wage by county cost of living reviewed ever census. I've thought of perhaps a minimum wage that lasts six months for an employee then a second minimum wage that is higher. But I suspect all that would do is get places to fire workers every six months.

But I do think we can underestimate the difficulties of crawling out of a poverty cycle. So much of what our society is requires either cash on hand, or available credit. Aside from the items above, look at transportation. Affording a car, licensing the car and insuring the car is awful hard on minimum wage. So people at that level require mass transit. In much of America, mass transit is pretty bad. For people required to work flex hours, a bus system that stops at 6pm, or 9pm, may as well not exist.

And this hasn't even hit on the other half of the problem, are there good middle class jobs waiting on those people to move up to?

As far as I know, Trump is the only POTUS who has mentioned regionalizing the minimum wage. That makes enormous sense; I don't know why the Democrats oppose that and also oppose age-related minimum wages. In the rural Colorado ranching community I regularly visit, a $15 minimum wage will not only kill jobs, it will likely kill the meager economy that is there. The ranch-hands who live there won't even be able to afford a meatloaf dinner on Saturday night. The two local diners will have to depend on visitors or close.

What do you consider a "middle class job"? Is it just pay, or is it also about the type of work. There are severe labor shortages in Denver and elsewhere for workers in dirty jobs. It seems that we have determined a middle class job is one where a Starbucks, craft beer joint, or white wine bar is nearby and one where workers don't need to take a shower after a day's work. Dirty jobs are not even on the radar of people who desire a middle class job.

 

[IUCrazy2]

As far as I know, Trump is the only POTUS who has mentioned regionalizing the minimum wage. That makes enormous sense; I don't know why the Democrats oppose that and also oppose age-related minimum wages. In the rural Colorado ranching community I regularly visit, a $15 minimum wage will not only kill jobs, it will likely kill the meager economy that is there. The ranch-hands who live there won't even be able to afford a meatloaf dinner on Saturday night. The two local diners will have to depend on visitors or close.

What do you consider a "middle class job"? Is it just pay, or is it also about the type of work. There are severe labor shortages in Denver and elsewhere for workers in dirty jobs. It seems that we have determined a middle class job is one where a Starbucks, craft beer joint, or white wine bar is nearby and one where workers don't need to take a shower after a day's work. Dirty jobs are not even on the radar of people who desire a middle class job.

Forgot me a middle class job is one that I could conceivably do until retirement without destroying my health. We definitely have some openingsort in blue collar work but for those of us who are probably going to be working into our 70's there is a very large price to pay in health and productivity to do those "dirty" jobs past a certain age.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

am all in on the belief that we are heading to a jobless* future.

Robots are good at repetitive tasks. Human beings need to keep ahead of that curve and we will be fine. I think we can always do work that a robot cannot do, but that is a dynamic process, not a static one. Only when we become complacent, loose initiative, join a herd, stop doing the "hard" tasks, or fail to apply are brains to newer and newer things, will humans have no work to do.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I am all in on the belief that we are heading to a jobless* future. People keep telling me that's crazy, there are all the jobs a computer/robot could NEVER do. But it wasn't long ago that we said a computer could never beat a human at chess, then Go, then Texas Hold'em and a computer has won all three.

Gene Roddenberry refused to go there, hence why Scotty kept having to risk his life instead of sending a robot into the warp coils. The reality is, the USS Enterprise would have been entirely computer/robot crewed. Which has me thinking, most of our movies like Arrival have aliens coming here. Is an Alien really going to land and risk who knows what bacteria or virus? We ought to have sci fi movies showing un"manned" alien ships arriving.

*Of course not 100% jobless. I'm not sure humans will enjoy robot basketball. But even if the total number of jobs just stays exactly where it is today and population keeps growing, what happens? At some point in the not too distant future we are facing major social upheaval .

I wish I could find article...but speaking to social upheaval and your post, I saw article awhile back where someone was putting forth the argument that as soon as a robot army could be developed that we will basically go back to the dark ages. The rich will be able to enforce their will without much use for the poor masses. He took a really dystopian view of the robot future.

It was kind of interesting given the other side of the spectrum where we all receive a set wage and live the good life while the robots toil for us.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

As far as I know, Trump is the only POTUS who has mentioned regionalizing the minimum wage. That makes enormous sense; I don't know why the Democrats oppose that and also oppose age-related minimum wages. In the rural Colorado ranching community I regularly visit, a $15 minimum wage will not only kill jobs, it will likely kill the meager economy that is there. The ranch-hands who live there won't even be able to afford a meatloaf dinner on Saturday night. The two local diners will have to depend on visitors or close.

What do you consider a "middle class job"? Is it just pay, or is it also about the type of work. There are severe labor shortages in Denver and elsewhere for workers in dirty jobs. It seems that we have determined a middle class job is one where a Starbucks, craft beer joint, or white wine bar is nearby and one where workers don't need to take a shower after a day's work. Dirty jobs are not even on the radar of people who desire a middle class job.

I would say it is about pay. At one time middle class (1800s) was your small business owner. Then it became your white color worker, then it became your factory worker. So it has changed over the years. Part of the issue with "dirty" jobs is that the pay is because they are jobs people don't want. Usually there has been some skill or knowledge that set those jobs apart. A willingness to crawl in the mud is the issue now, and it might be a good job for the moment. But if more people adopt that willingness, I think the market will collapse faster than other middle class jobs did.

The "dirty" job concept raises an important problem though. There are some jobs out there that are just dang difficult to work at for 40 years and have a body left. We need to consider that on raising the age for social security. People may be living longer, that doesn't mean we necessarily want 69 year olds out as forest firefighters finishing up their 40 year career.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Robots are good at repetitive tasks. Human beings need to keep ahead of that curve and we will be fine. I think we can always do work that a robot cannot do, but that is a dynamic process, not a static one. Only when we become complacent, loose initiative, join a herd, stop doing the "hard" tasks, or fail to apply are brains to newer and newer things, will humans have no work to do.

Poker is supposedly dynamic, and many, many people said computers would never solve bluffing. Heck, Captain Kirk routinely defeated computers with bluffing. Yet, the computer has mastered it. We look for reasons to believe we are superior. It is comforting for us. But to tie into what Crazed said above, I'm ready to serve my computer overlords .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Poker is supposedly dynamic, and many, many people said computers would never solve bluffing. Heck, Captain Kirk routinely defeated computers with bluffing. Yet, the computer has mastered it. We look for reasons to believe we are superior. It is comforting for us. But to tie into what Crazed said above, I'm ready to serve my computer overlords .

I'm not convinced the computer solved bluffing. Is that in the link? I didn't read it that way.

As far as Kasparov is concerned, Deep Blue wasn't so good in that match. It was programed for that match. It didn't use AI, it just calculated alternatives at super speed using the Kasparov tendencies as an input. If another player with Kasparov's skill had shown up for the match, the outcome could well have been different.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I would say it is about pay. At one time middle class (1800s) was your small business owner. Then it became your white color worker, then it became your factory worker. So it has changed over the years. Part of the issue with "dirty" jobs is that the pay is because they are jobs people don't want. Usually there has been some skill or knowledge that set those jobs apart. A willingness to crawl in the mud is the issue now, and it might be a good job for the moment. But if more people adopt that willingness, I think the market will collapse faster than other middle class jobs did.

The "dirty" job concept raises an important problem though. There are some jobs out there that are just dang difficult to work at for 40 years and have a body left. We need to consider that on raising the age for social security. People may be living longer, that doesn't mean we necessarily want 69 year olds out as forest firefighters finishing up their 40 year career.

That's the point. Doing mentally and physically hard stuff is good for us. We have ample ways nowadays to prevent workplace illnesses and prevent injuries. Too many of us see comfort and no stress or strain in their future. That future is unhealthy.

 

[mjvcaj]

It points out that nearly 1 in 3 people who start at minimum wage are still there a year later

One year is the new timeline for a promotion? That seems like a poor measuring stick.

Nearly 70 percent were earning within 10 percent of the minimum wage after three years

Isn't the average wage increase ~2-3% in recent years?

 

[mjvcaj]

Many of our disagreements between liberals and conservatives center on government policy toward the poor. And when we discuss the minimum wage, the point is often made by conservatives that people move up and out of minimum wage jobs into better jobs

Many issues with minimum wage are related to flow through economic effects and decisions caused by increasing the minimum wage.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

One year is the new timeline for a promotion? That seems like a poor measuring stick.

Nearly 70 percent were earning within 10 percent of the minimum wage after three years

Isn't the average wage increase ~2-3% in recent years?

The issue is that the minimum wage is not a living wage. The longer people are trapped there, the farther behind they become. The usual argument is that people start there then quickly move up to jobs where they can support themselves. The minimum wage is $7.25. a 10% increase is $8. Can people reasonably expect to live on $8? After another three years, they might be up to $9, is that the amount people can raise a family on?

 

[Sope Creek]

Wendy's announced this week that they are going to be installing kiosks to order your food in trial locations. The question is soon going to become not how much should pay be for those jobs but whether they should even exist.

Further down the line they are developing legal and accounting programs to handle quite a few of the things that are handled by white collar workers.

Sky net is not far behind....

(1) The legal side of that rub is already having a major impact, and many lawyers are working in what amounts to legal factories for wages as low as $18/hr (more typically somewhere between $24/hr and $32/hr) gleaning required data for big class action cases. And that's not news; software application programs have been hitting middle management jobs for decades in industries like banking and insurance, and continue to do so even more . . . what you're seeing is it is now hitting advanced degree professionals. And that's something of a shock to the old social order, in addition to the financial order . . . .

(2) This takes me back to our discussion regarding Bill Gates' suggestion to tax robots used in manufacturing. If automation is going to replace labor/skill, then it's mainstream enough of an economic activity to tax. Something like a VAT is going to be what we settle on, I should think. What that looks like, I dunno yet. Haven't studied it.

 

[Sope Creek]

The issue is that the minimum wage is not a living wage. The longer people are trapped there, the farther behind they become. The usual argument is that people start there then quickly move up to jobs where they can support themselves. The minimum wage is $7.25. a 10% increase is $8. Can people reasonably expect to live on $8? After another three years, they might be up to $9, is that the amount people can raise a family on?

Not only is it not a wage that people can raise a family on, it's not even enough for two people working at that wage to raise a family on . . . which further destroys the family as the primary social and societal unit. How many times to we complain about "where are their parents" or "why didn't their parents teach them that" or something similar, without ever considering the impact that the demands our economy has on these low wage-earners in exchange for such small amounts.

I was talking with my older son, who manages a restaurant, and his observation of his staff is pretty straight-forward: they're all pretty much young folks who are just getting started - living at home trying to pay for a used car and car insurance, plus have a little spending money so they can socialize on occasion . . . and their work hours preclude them from having any connection with traditional societal institutions, like a church or a club, for example - so they're left to fend for themselves, pretty much alone. They're really the folks who often need those institutions the most . . . but they're the ones denied access because of their low economic/social status. Some folks in those types of institutions are starting to get this . . . I heard the other day at a men's breakfast at church how one new outreach program is starting a meeting - not a worship meeting, necessarily - at a local restaurant so servers and cooks who need someplace to go after work (shifts typically end from 11 pm to about 2 am) and have human contact other than at a bar will have that place to go to. When we start seeing where people really are and how they really live instead of pretending everything's OK because "I've got mine", we'll start seeing solutions . . . but not until then. And yes, this is why "Trump".

 

[tigerchump]

The issue is that the minimum wage is not a living wage. The longer people are trapped there, the farther behind they become. The usual argument is that people start there then quickly move up to jobs where they can support themselves. The minimum wage is $7.25. a 10% increase is $8. Can people reasonably expect to live on $8? After another three years, they might be up to $9, is that the amount people can raise a family on?

I dont see how you could raise a family on 12 dollars an hour,with only one income nowadays.With two adults making that kind of money,you wouldnt be living high.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

As far as I know, Trump is the only POTUS who has mentioned regionalizing the minimum wage. That makes enormous sense; I don't know why the Democrats oppose that and also oppose age-related minimum wages. In the rural Colorado ranching community I regularly visit, a $15 minimum wage will not only kill jobs, it will likely kill the meager economy that is there. The ranch-hands who live there won't even be able to afford a meatloaf dinner on Saturday night. The two local diners will have to depend on visitors or close.

What do you consider a "middle class job"? Is it just pay, or is it also about the type of work. There are severe labor shortages in Denver and elsewhere for workers in dirty jobs. It seems that we have determined a middle class job is one where a Starbucks, craft beer joint, or white wine bar is nearby and one where workers don't need to take a shower after a day's work. Dirty jobs are not even on the radar of people who desire a middle class job.

you're post is predicated on the ridiculous false premise that raising the minimum wage would raise the wages of only those working at the restaurant, but not the wages of those frequenting the restaurant as well.

the entire problem with any trickle down BS, is that it's 100% dependent on the owners/management of business, and those who constitute the "haves", VOLUNTARILY sharing their increased take with those beneath them.

that ain't happening, EVER!

they ain't voluntarily sharing nothin.

only way anything ever trickles down from those who control the original distribution of revenues, is by force.

if those who control the distribution of revenues of any venture, regardless of how many individuals were needed/involved in creating said revenues, are allowed to keep it all for themselves, they will.

if not, they will still only share as little as they possibly can get away with.

that's human nature, and it ain't gonna change.

and any consumption based economy is benefited long term, by more and more people being able to afford goods and services.

a few individuals with all the money, no matter how self indulgent, will never consume anywhere near the volume of goods and services that would get consumed were wealth more evenly distributed, and in a situation where many, as opposed to few, are able to afford said goods and services.

left totally unchecked, capitalism will self cannibalize, by it's very nature. (laws of it's very nature dictate such, there's nothing you can do to change that).

that doesn't make capitalism bad, it only makes it subject to it's own very nature.

to maximize the benefits of capitalism, safeguards must always be in place to prevent, and/or keep to a minimum, said inherent self cannibalizing characteristics.

 

[HillzHoozier]

At some point, shouldn't the focus include figuring out how the cart got in the ditch, and then taking measures to prevent it from leaving the pavement? On roads that have a sheer drop, the first step is to erect a guard rail. Wouldn't it be foolish to decide instead to fill the bottom of the ravine with pillows?

Anyone with a family trying to support it with a minimum wage job has many hurdles, and their low wage job is way down on the list of them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

At some point, shouldn't the focus include figuring out how the cart got in the ditch, and then taking measures to prevent it from leaving the pavement? On roads that have a sheer drop, the first step is to erect a guard rail. Wouldn't it be foolish to decide instead to fill the bottom of the ravine with pillows?

Anyone with a family trying to support it with a minimum wage job has many hurdles, and their low wage job is way down on the list of them.

I'm not really sure what your point is, that poor people shouldn't have kids? It seems to me it has always been the poor have a higher birth rate than wealthy. And part of that is the poor are more likely to need kids to take care of them in their old age. Who else will?

Further, some have made the trip down to minimum wage. If you didn't know people who were doing OK come 2008 and ended up at a minimum wage job because it was all that was available. What should they have done with their children?

Not everyone who has children has them planned. If birth control is 99% effective, how many children are conceived each year in that 1%? Or should poor people not have sex? Or maybe abortion is the best solution?

I know there have been discussions here before that lead to the everyone working a job should have respect for their work sort of statements. I know there have been some conservatives here think that liberals look down on certain jobs. I'm not sure telling people their job should preclude them from being parents is very respectful of their work. Even in the midst of the great depression, babies were born. And a big part of that reason, the reason kids are born into bone crushing poverty of India, is the belief that tomorrow will be better than today. Why are we losing that? I have no problem with poor people having children, its been the nature of human civilization.