from the I-wonder-if-they-will-remember-this-time-next-week dept.
from the How-the-Other-Half-Lives dept.
The Center for American Progress reports
Since he began his minimum wage challenge on Sunday, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, now president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has had eggs and toast, a bowl of cereal with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and a banana. On Monday, he came to work with a bologna and cheese sandwich and a banana. "I'm not sure what I'm going to have for supper," he told ThinkProgress.
This is not a typical menu for him. But given that he can only spend $77 a week while he's taking the challenge, which asks lawmakers to live on a typical full-time minimum wage minus average taxes and housing expenses for a week, he has to "be sensitive about everything that I buy." Eggs are fairly cheap, he reasoned, and "I have found out that bananas don't cost a whole lot, so I stocked up on bananas." He hasn't eaten any other fruits or salads because they're too expensive. For the remaining five days of his challenge, "I don't think I'll be eating very healthy," he said. "Bologna's a lot cheaper than ham. I've been eating [quite] a bit of bread."
[...]
He came down with a cold but was lucky enough to find Tylenol and Afrin nasal spray in his cabinet already. "I don't think I would have been able to buy that Afrin nasal spray" on the challenge, he noted. "I never think about what medicine costs if i need it... But some people have to think constantly about how they spend their money, and their quality of life is quite different than mine."
Strickland will be joined by some current lawmakers this week, including Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowsky (IL), Tim Ryan (OH), and Keith Ellison (MN)
[...]
The hope is that those who take the challenge get a taste of what life is like on a low wage, even if it's temporary and they can go back to their normal lifestyles after a week. "I think it's important for those of us in these leadership positions that get elected by our constituents to represent their views from time to time to take a challenge such as this," Rep. Ryan said on the call, "to make sure we really are not just understanding this in an intellectual way but really understand the deep challenges that people face." It's meant to "bring awareness to this issue," he said.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by middlemen on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:01PM
Why are always the Democrats doing this. They should make the Republicans do it especially Paul Ryan so they understand that their economics knowledge is based in fantasy.
(Score: 0, Troll) by emg on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:16PM
No, they should make the Dems do the 'Automated Out Of A Job Challenge', so they understand that their constant demands for artificially increasing wages are based in fantasy.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:47PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:12PM
Every place that has increased its minimum wage has seen AN UPTICK in its local economy.
Your repeating myths just makes you look uninformed and foolish.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by emg on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:52PM
Yeah, right. Clearly increasing company costs will improve the economy.
The UK introduced its minimum wage when I was working there. Lots of people were looking forward to it, because it would mean they'd get more money for doing the same work. Then, soon after it was introduced, many of them were complaining because companies cut their hours and expected them to still get the same amount of work done, in less time.
Then Eastern Europe opened up, and UK manufacturers realized they could sell their factory to a property developer, use the money to build a brand-new, high-tech factory in Eastern Europe, and pay the employees less than the UK minimum wage. Big wins all round. Except for those who lost their jobs.
But, you're right. Since increasing the minimum wage is so great for the economy, let's increase it to $100 an hour. Clearly no companies will take advantage of our crazy low credit interest rates to borrow money to automate those people out of their business, or sack them and hire illegal immigrants willing to work for less than minimum wage instead.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by metamonkey on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:11PM
That's such a ridiculous refrain.
"I've got a headache."
"You should take two aspirin."
"Well since taking aspirin is so great for a headache I should just take a whole bottle!"
There is an hourly minimum wage number between $0 and $100 that is optimum for the overall health of the economy. Some argue that the current rates are too low. You might argue that they're too high. But the "if it's so great just raise it to a billion dollars loloolol111!!!!1!" trope is tired and stupid.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:01PM
Aspirin analogy rejected: Do you take the maximum dose of aspirin every day, for the rest of your life? Would that be good for the long term health of the system?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:54PM
Ridiculous rejection rejected: if minimum wage didn't exist, I'd get paid even less to do my job as my employer pays what he feels like. I'm already paid a little less than 2/3rds of unemployment after 6 years working for a multimillionaire, operating and taking care of extremely expensive equipment. They keep telling me if I don't like having my wages ripped off (they just randomly cut hours worked from my time sheet so they can meet their minimalist budget), if I don't like being blamed for equipment failures (most of our equipment is 20 years old and well past the use-by date), and if I don't like the shit conditions, I can always go and work at a supermarket where they pay a lot more than I get now. Of course, I can't just go and get a job at a supermarket because I have a degree, and people with degrees are considered a "flight risk" by managers of low pay businesses...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @01:56AM
You do realize that the "take a whole bottle of asprin" analogy is being used to counter the "why not raise minimum wage to $1000/hr" argument, right? They're equally stupid.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:08PM
Here's the real argument:
"I've got a headache."
"You should take MORE aspirin because MORE aspirin is better!"
Minimum wage proponents never advocate a particular level of minimum wage. It is always more.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:53PM
> Minimum wage proponents never advocate a particular level of minimum wage. It is always more.
WTF are you talking about? Every single proposal for an increased minimum wage has specified an exact number.
That you could be so obviously wrong, I mean something that doesn't even pass the laugh test, really ought to have you questioning your own ability to make objective conclusions. Have you no shred of self-doubt?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 25 2014, @12:07AM
Which is always positive.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @01:37AM
What, are you like a teenager or something?
Because you sound like someone who is supremely confident in irrelevant minutiae.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @02:03AM
Well it wouldn't be an increase if it was a negative number, now would it?
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday July 25 2014, @02:13PM
Yes, because the reason the current minimum wage is no longer acceptable is because inflation has decreased its buying power. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. The wage in 1968, $1.60/hour, would be equivalent to $10.90 in 2013 dollars.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 25 2014, @02:00AM
the minimum wage should be equivalent to the living wage [wikipedia.org] for that area.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 25 2014, @02:35PM
Yeah, because there's this little thing called INFLATION.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:13PM
trope is tired and stupid.
Why? Because you say so?
Look thru the eye of the broken window fallacy.
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap01p1.html [steshaw.org]
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap19p1.html [steshaw.org]
Basically there are enough jobs for 'everyone'. Just not enough jobs at particular prices. For example for me to scrape the gum off a sidewalk in front of a store the store would need to pay me at least 50 an hour (as I can find jobs for at least that amount today because of my skills). However the store does not value it that highly. Maybe they value it at 50 cents an hour.
Now what happens when you put a cap in? The business still needs its gum scrapped off. They are not going to pay me $50 an hour to do it as they are only willing to come off 50 cents. So what do they do? They give the work to someone else they are already paying as their margin is probably not enough to hire a whole person at min wage to do it. Then ask the worker why he is behind. Lets say this other employee makes 3 dollars an hour (he has been there awhile) and min wage is made to be 3 (just nice easy numbers). So instead of the store paying out 3.50. They will pay out 3 dollars. But you say the same amount of work was done. You are right about the gum however other work was now done at lower cost. What about the rest of the dudes job? You have just removed from society 50 cents of productivity. As now the other worker can not be doing his 3 dollar an hour job he is doing the 50 cent an hour job and being over paid for it. However that means he is doing other work instead of his original work. Meaning less work is done.
Min wage removes productivity and money from the economy. It literally puts money into businesses from the workers.
If you want to *really* raise wages you need to make it so people at the low end are scarce not more common. Those jobs still need to be done. Businesses will value the job more and pay more for it. Scarcity increases costs faster than anything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @09:36PM
minimum wage is supposed to set the floor below which you can't survive even if you work your butt off,
it's currently to low, a lot of people are working 2-3 minimum wage jobs working whatever hours they can get and they're still drowning
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:16PM
So they had more free time for the same pay.
As for the rest, in tyhe U.S. they've already offshored pretty much anything they could.
The U.S. states that have increased their minimum wage have seen at worst no job loss.
Since minimum wage is so terrible, surely if we just declare them slaves wealth will rain down on them.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:06PM
Exactly. Increasing the minimum wage is no substitute for other protective measures which should ensure that the wage increase actually has a beneficial effect to not only the recipient, but is not going to subtract from the middle-class. What I'm thinking is that wages at or around a raised minimum wage is going to be used as a tool to force the middle class into the lower class, essentially creating two classes (proles and the elites) instead of the three we enjoy today.
As for the P.R. crocodile-tears of these congressman pieces of shit, did they ever stop to think that being poor actually rocks when you know you're gonna be rich in a week? Did they ever stop to think that the middle-class don't enjoy the perks of it because they know they're gonna be poor next week?
Man, those pieces of shit in those big white buildings in D.C. infuriate me to no end.
(Score: 1) by pgc on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:18PM
"Yeah, right. Clearly increasing company costs will improve the economy."
What do you think the people will be doing wiht their money? That's right: spend it!
Increasing costs caused by increased wages has no negative effect on the 'economy'. It will actually improve it: people will be able to spend more, thereby most likely live healthier (better medicine, better food, better living conditions) and thus increasing their morale and productivity at the company.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:28PM
Henry Ford paid his employees a living wage so they could buy his product while stupid as fuck American companies send all the jobs to overseas slaves, pay illegals peanuts to do their work here and are shocked! they can't move any products....dumbasses.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:41AM
I'm so sick of this lie.
Ford had to pay his employees a higher wage because the job was a nightmare. You had men used to an agrarian way of life suddenly working in a mind numbing repetitive factory job. Workers hated it and would often quit after a few hours which would stop the assembly line and hurt his profits. He had to pay them to put up with it and end his high worker turn over.
Henry Ford didn't give a shit what his employees could buy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:34AM
> Henry Ford didn't give a shit what his employees could buy.
Perhaps you haven't realized this yet, but more than one thing can be true at the same time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:48AM
And he instantly went bankrupt and the economy was devastated. That's why to this day, nobody drives cars or works in a factory. right?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 25 2014, @11:45AM
[citation needed]
I live in the UK, and haven't noticed any of this shit you are talking about. I think you are getting your "facts" from tabloid headlines and people "complaining" about the lies they read in the Murdochs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:51PM
"Why are always the Democrats doing this."
Propaganda.
(Score: 1) by GoodBuddy on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:53PM
Because it's pointless and won't accomplish anything except for PR.
(Score: 1) by SplawnDarts on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:49PM
Because when Republicans do it, they tend to do things like not buying processed food (which cost more for the same calories than their base ingredients) and buying their base calories in staples like cornmeal before buying anything else and thus they don't really encounter any hardship. This makes the Dems butthurt and thus the whole thing is a waste of time rather than teaching them anything, and life continues as before.
Our local news runs one of these every few years. The results are the same each time. Tedious.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:13PM
Anybody can live as a hobo for a week. The problem with poverty is that you know it'll be like that, or worse, for a whole lot of time, which makes money the main dimension, the measure for everything. The risk is a one dimensional life even if you become rich later on.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by buswolley on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:43PM
And because there is a lack of security. If the congressman's car broke down, he might have waited a week to keep true, but he'd have known in his heart that it would be fixed in a week. That is totally different than it feels like when you are poor.
subicular junctures
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:38PM
FWIW, when I was younger I went for a week without food or shelter. I did allow myself a vitamin pill a day, and water.
OTOH, I had no intention of trying to feel like what it would be to be poor. I was on a vision quest. (It didn't work. Possibly a month would have.)
But, yeah, it was easy. The difficult thing was finding a place to sleep where I wouldn't be disturbed. (I also didn't talk to anyone for that week...and that was a part of the intent.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday July 25 2014, @08:10PM
and this also assumes free housing. trying making minimum wage while actually having to pay for even the room your bed is in. I bet the bananas and bologna are too expensive for you then.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:13PM
I remember here in the UK about 10 years ago one of our right wing politicians lived off the minimum wage for a week, and they made a documentary about it. He acted very humbled and all, but you could tell that he thought it was easy. If anything, I wonder if it entrenched his views.
In a way, he's right. Minimum wage for a week isn't that that hard when you've got a 4 bedroom house and a new model car and a fat bank account to return to at the end of it. The harshness comes in when you've been doing it for months, then years, and every last penny seems to disappear into some debt hole, you're making the choice between food and utility bills, when everything you own is inadequete or failing, and there's no end in sight.
The key isn't to show them how hard it is, because all but the most pig ignorant of them will have at least a vague inkling of life outside of their protected bubble. The key, I imagine, is to make them realise that they're part of the problem, and induce them to care enough to run against the vested interests that seem to run most Western countries.
Still, who knows, maybe some good will come of it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:19PM
Marie-Antoinette used to dress up like a shepardess and pretend to be poor. Not much good came out of that.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:40PM
The cake was a lie?
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday July 25 2014, @02:37PM
brioche....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:49PM
> Prepare for some very smug behaviour.
In this case, it is only liberal politicians participating. It's "PR" for their cause rather than an actual learning experiment. Some might argue that is just smugness but from a different orientation. I probably would not make that argument though.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tonyPick on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:21PM
Matthew Parris, probably: More info and a bit of discussion here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2013/apr/02/iain-duncan-smith-mp-living-on-benefits [theguardian.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @02:10PM
Yeah. It's easy to live on minimum wage when you can _retire_ on something else. Different case if you've only got minimum wage and your retirement prospects aren't as rosy. So this is probably a PR/vote winning stunt.
If you really want change, how about limit the politicians salaries to a multiple of what the poorest 5 percent live on. Say 10 times? Does that sound fair? Or 20x?
I don't want my leaders to live like the poorest of the poor - that would be silly for many practical reasons. But at least this way the better off the poor, the more they get paid. And their screw-ups often hurt the poor more.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:18PM
I guess it is nice that they are attempting it at all (cynically, I look at this as simply a PR stunt), but a week is only a half a pay period for them. For them to really appreciate it, they need to go a month or two. Something long enough that their food stock would be appreciably lower, and/or where their bills would really kick in.
I have considerably less money than your average Congressman, and I certainly make significantly less than they do, but it would not be hard for me to go a week given that the majority of the food I'd be consuming is in my fridge and pantry and has already been paid for. And if that week isn't the first of a new month, which is when the majority of my big bills hit, I would really only need to worry about covering my transportation costs. Make me do it for multiple weeks, it would quickly and readily become apparent that I couldn't live my current lifestyle on minimum wage.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:31PM
I agree. Someone should poke a hole in one of his tires. Let's see how he deals with that on minimum wage : ) Then dock his pay because he didn't make it in to work on time. A week isn't enough to really know. Though it is great that they are doing it at all. If they are genuinely interesting in knowing what it's like and not just a PR thing.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:57PM
Hmm you make good points.
Perhaps we could re-tailor the 'game'. For example instead of really slashing his tires give out 'xyz broke' card and have them put the real money to the side somewhere? Then can not use his car but has to use the subway.
Even people who make 'ok' money need to try this. It is not easy.
People also say things like 'oh just eat healthy' and 'oh its easy here is three random places you can get food'. Yet they do not realize that someone who is barely scraping by may not even have a credit card (or even qualify). Most online stores require one. The closest place to eat is the quikie mart on the corner (and we know how they are on prices). They have to walk everywhere because someone slashed all 4 tires on the car that needs major work on the engine.
This could work. The 'game' needs tweaking though. Length of time needs to be 2-3 months min too. It also needs to be a random selection from the group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:17PM
Better yet give him a tooth ache and see how he plans to pay the fuckin' dentist while he can barely chew his cute bologna sandwiches.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:35PM
Yeah. Give him a sick kid and a mom who broke her hip. Then give him a felony conviction so he can experience how fun it is to cope with that, too. Oh, and have the cops pick him up randomly and detain him because he has the wrong color skin.
There are so many other realities that real people in this situation have to contend with that would be fun to layer into the experiment.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by mj on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:16PM
I wonder if Politicians would be into a Reality TV series....
The nihilists have such good imaginations.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:34PM
(runs to the trademark/copyright/business license offices.....)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:45PM
Indeed. To add a bit more realism to this "experiment" (read as "PR stunt"), he should have no access to his bank accounts, investment accounts, credit cards, his FICO score should be well below 600, and he should be forced to live in rent-controlled housing. For at least a year. Two or more years would be more realistic yet. Oh, and the only vehicle he should have any access to should be a ten year old egg-beater with a salvage title. Maybe then he might develop some empathy for what the lower-rungs of the economic ladder are really like. In fact, I am beginning to think that a requirement for serving in Congress should be that they are required to live off minimum wage the entire time they serve in office. Congress would raise the minimum wage overnight if they were actually required to live off that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:12PM
Yeah. Better yet, make them live as being horribly crippled or retarded. Let's see them cope with that!
0r even better, make em dead. Make em see how hard it is to make a living when your dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:26PM
dock his pay because he didn't make it in to work on time
Using public transit can require considerable planning (involving significant idle time).
If your departure point|destination is on a line that only runs once an hour, that can take a sizable chunk out of your day.
If these reenactors had to surrender their cars for the duration, it would cast a different light on the experiment.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by x.PG9Z-zT9(Ccd on Friday July 25 2014, @04:49AM
An average person eats about 30 pounds of food per week. On average, a pound of food can be had for about a buck (though this can vary by location). Meats and some fruit are more than a buck, most vegetables are a buck or less. Dairy products and bread are around a buck. I personally spend about 35-40 bucks a week on food - and this is healthy eating mind you. I buy a bunch of vegetables and fruit, some meat/fish, some dairy, and cook at home. So, having 77 bucks a week to spend on things other than rent, seems very doable. Really, if the guy is feeling like he's not eating enough and is eating crap, with 77 bucks to spend in a week, he's not doing it right.
In the longer term though, various 'occasional' maintenance expenditures will catch up to you, so indeed a week is too short to really feel the impact of only having 77 bucks/wk.
(Score: 2) by tempest on Friday July 25 2014, @01:35PM
I don't think there is any way they can fully understand the position unless they've lived the life. A week, a month or even years may not matter because there is HOPE. When you look into that dark pit which is apparently your future, and you're doubtful you'll ever get out of it; the realization this will likely be your entire life: THAT is a harrowing experience. Even if you're not all the way at the bottom, it's distressing worrying that losing your job could easily put you there. I doubt he has such concerns.
And this guy lives on $77, so what? I'll strait out say that living on $77 isn't so bad when you've got a job like that. Many of us would gain a substantial upgrade to our quality of life if you cut our wage in half and gave us the perks of a congressman.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:21PM
Living for a week on minimum wage doesn't really matter. The cumulative effects of inflation, emergencies, personal change, and societal change won't catch up with you. Anyone who tries this probably has no real money insecurity. He ought to try living on minimum wage for the last year in high school, then try going to college on grants for needy (do they still have Pell Grants?), and then try starting a job where you need a car and professional clothing - and then try to survive the first couple of years when you need car repairs and so on, or when you realize you need a computer to get anywhere in your career, or when you realize the world has moved on and if you don't have a cellphone you're probably not going to have much luck with job interviews. Stuff like that starts adding up.
At the very minimum, he should start living for one year on minimum wage, and average his expenses so he gets a good idea of how much to spend from week to week. Not every week will require the same amount of cash. Anyone can go one week without buying clothes or whatever, but try going one year, or five years.
I said in an earlier comment that the rich simply don't comprehend what it means to be poor. As a result, they propose all kinds of silly things that are useless to the poor. Stunts like this don't help, because it gives them an unrealistic view of what poverty means.
I ought to write a book about being poor in the 1980s. Give people a perspective.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:28PM
I had Pell grants every semester through college, and I graduated in 2012. According to Wikipedia, they're still going. I'm glad for that, they really saved my ass.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:33PM
You ought to write a book, because you're expressing the reality of it cogently. If you expand it into a program that all politicians must complete before holding office, and that they must repeat after every second term (the way that doctors have to do Continuing Medical Education (CME)), so that they can experience the sharp ends of their policy sticks, then I will buy copies for myself and everyone I know and insist they read it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:58PM
While living like this for a week won't expose some of the deeper issues, it does help with a lot of the 1st-level dismissal. Claims like "Minimum wage is plenty, as long as you eat at home" or "The poor are only poor because they spend their money stupidly"
Strickland already acknowledged that he would not be able to afford medicine, and that even simple meal planning is a challenge. This isn't about economic mobility (which you focused on), only about understanding and empathizing with those that are currently poor.
Granted, a week is a pretty short time, even just for slumming it on food. Canned pasta, tuna, Mac & Cheese, etc are comfort foods for many people. It doesn't become a burden in less than a week.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:22PM
He even cheated a bit. Someone on minimum wage who couldn't afford a cold remedy wouldn't just happen to have one in the closet already.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:35PM
Cheap food is loaded with carbs, sugar and fat.
Yes, eggs are cheap, and look at how much cholesterol is in them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by iwoloschin on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:08PM
Yes, and it's good cholesterol. Yeah, that's a thing. You'd actually die without cholesterol, so yeah, give me your eggs and I'll eat them.
And not that you should believe everything you see on the internet, but here's a 5 second Google search source: http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-eggs-are-the-healthiest-food-on-the-planet/ [authoritynutrition.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:56PM
I really don't get the point of this. Am I supposed to think that empathy is required to be a good lawmaker, and that through this exercise they will gain empathy? In that case, why not have each prospective Congressman spend a year in the projects, a year as a cancer patient, a year in prison, a year as the opposite gender, a year as a law student (oh, wait, they have that covered), a year as a foreigner trying to pass immigration, a year as somebody with a bad credit score, a year as a farmer, a year as a scientist, a year as a beggar, a year as a small business owner, a year as an artist, a year collecting comic books... How else could they have enough empathy to govern our nation?
(Score: 1, Troll) by emg on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:18PM
The point is, it's a PR stunt, so the politicians can say 'OMG! Minimum wage is far too low to live on! We must increase it NOW!' It has no bearing on life in the real world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:39PM
It has no bearing on life in the real world
While it's not a full-on simulation of life on the fringe, it *is* informative.
Why don't YOU try it for a month?
Start by giving up your nice apartment|house and find a place that is affordable on minimum wage.
You won't be able to afford car payments either, so give that up.
Let us know how it went.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:45PM
Minimum wage is not intended to be a wage at which one can comfortably live. It is for those who, for one reason or another, cannot support themselves, and are therefore dependent upon another, but would like to work and earn money anyway. Minimum wage is intended to prevent employers from exploiting such people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:28PM
Minimum wage is not intended to be a wage at which one can comfortably live
...for a really mean-spirited definition of "comfortable".
Minimum wage is intended to prevent employers from exploiting
On the contrary.
WalMart gives new employees a handout with directions on how to apply for food stamps, gov't housing assistance, gov't healthcare...
If the radical reactionaries **really** wanted people off the gov't teat, the 1st thing they'd do is require a living wage for all workers.
Actual Conservatives already know this and oppose the kind of businesses that require gov't subsidies.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:37PM
I had a very lengthy reply composed, but it boils down to one point: You didn't even bother reading what you replied to. It's as if you snipped sentence fragments based on key words and replied with stock phrases. I have no interest in such a conversation, but I'll leave you these to amuse yourself with. Build whatever replies you like out of them.
Healthcare
Republicans
Democrats
Libertarians
European Union
Canada
Switzerland
public school system
underemployment
1930s
outsourcing
gold standard
journalism
socialism
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 25 2014, @02:20AM
wait, what? that makes no sense. you're right about it being intended to prevent employers from exploiting people, but this middle sentence is nonsense. the point of having a job is to support yourself, and the current minimum wage makes that impossible, thus people who support the current minimum wage levels either support mass starvation or government handouts.
(Score: 2) by emg on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:55PM
Because, duh, I have actual skills that are worth a lot more than minimum wage.
If you're fit and reasonably intelligent, and you've been working for a decade, and you haven't learned to do anything whatsoever that's worth more than the minimum possible wage anyone is allowed to pay you, you're doing something wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:11PM
Poor people deserve to be poor. If they weren't such lazy bastards they could be ubermen too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:19PM
But they deserve more just because they need it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @12:12AM
Well, that reasoning works for politicians, CxOs, and those born wealthy, so why not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @09:51PM
well if you don't give them what they need to survive somehow... well sooner or later they're gonna be desperate enough that the pitchforks come out.
a living wage is not charity for the poor, it's self-preservation for the rich, to bad most of 'em are to stupid and shortsighted to realise it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @12:17AM
So do I. I have a science degree, and I've been working in my current job (TV production) for 6 years, two years in IT before that, and odd jobs for a year here and there for several years before that.
My current employer pays me minimum wage because that's the least he can get away with. They do keep telling me if I want more money I can fuck off anywhere I like and get more money - he's on $100k/year, my immediate boss is on $55k/year - and the CEO is ripping off government funding, redirecting it into areas it's specifically not intended for. Apparently I'm worthless to the business and, even though there are no jobs (4000 unemployed in my town, about 30 jobs a week are advertised) if I want a better paying job I can just fuck off elsewhere.
So yeah, just having those skills doesn't help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @12:53AM
telling me if I want more money I can fuck off anywhere I like and get more money
I had a related discussion the other day.
My area does have jobs though. I think it's mostly because outsiders dismiss it out of hand as they fly over [soylentnews.org]
It seems that places with a lower cost of living are doing a bit better.
-- gewg
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:56PM
Stunts like this...my annual spending - mortgage, utilities, car, food, everything but taxes - is between $25-30k, depending on toys. My weekly cash budget for food and routine expenses is $80. I don't feel even a little deprived, nor do I ever say to myself, "No, I just can't afford that now." To cut to $14500, I'd have to give up buying a new toy every month, drop to minimum insurance coverages, and probably take in a boarder. I'd feel that, but it wouldn't be subjectively awful.
A US congressman or governor makes $175-200k+, and probably spends at least a third, or more likely half of that. The lifestyle of someone spending, say, $75k/year is filled with a great deal of casual luxury, and it's incredibly easy to become inured of that. For these people to "live on minimum wage for a week," is like a camping trip. It's probably useful to draw their attention to just exactly how frivolously they spend money on a daily basis, but it's not going to teach them the difference between a $500,000 house and a $500/month apartment. It's not even going to teach them the difference between a $2000 refrigerator and a $200 frige, and those are things that really make life feel different.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:42PM
Unless, you know, this exercise convinces enough of Congress to actually raise the minimum wage. That would have a pretty big bearing on life in the "real world".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by emg on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:57PM
Well, yes, it will put low-skilled workers out of work, and keep many more out of work.
Why do you hate low-skilled workers so much?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:52PM
Except that it didn't [foxnews.com] in states that have raised their minimum wages higher than the federal level. That's the problem with the minimum-wage-causes-unemployment argument: It has yet to find a reality that matches the theory.
A couple of explanations for why the old "price goes up, demand goes down" rule doesn't work for wages:
1. At these income levels, my company's higher wages are your company's higher sales, and vice versa. The increased profits from the increased sales might make up for the increased wages.
2. As a profit-maximizing manager, I've cut back my work force as much as I can get away with already, regardless of minimum wage. For example, if it takes 3 people to have my car wash open, it still takes 3 people after I have to pay them more - if I could have managed with only 2, I would have fired the third person.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:01PM
I just realized emg is right. If we lowered wages to zero, we could have full employment all the time! And businesses would be more profitable than ever. Life would be great. Ima write my congressman today and ask him to repeal the minimum wage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @02:26AM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:58PM
Actually, this is a pretty good point. If a congressperson doesn't have any empathy by the ripe old age they attain the position, how is this going to fix that?
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:56PM
Ok, this is totally random, but oatmeal rocks.
Its cheap, its full of fiber (the good fiber that is 100% whole grain, not the metamucil additive kind that clears your intestines but doesn't help with artery health) and you can use it for all kinds of stuff like where you would have used rice or mashed potatoes. Add sugar and cinnamon if you want something sweet, add chunky salsa if you want something savory or louisana hot-sauce for something spicy. And it is super easy to cook - 3 minutes in the microwave.
(Score: 3, Funny) by nyder on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:00PM
damn, okay mom. I got it. Eat more oatmeal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:05PM
Nah, its just that discussion of oatmeal on the net is so pedestrian but it lends itself so well to all kinds of tasty cooking. There is like 2 posts (well three now) in google of people straight-up putting salsa on oatmeal, but it is really savory. I had a huge mental block about doing anything with oatmeal that wasn't basically a sugary breakfast cereal substitute. I bet you do to.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:30PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:09PM
Ok, I'll try some grits. I cook my oatmeal with less water than the box recommends and it isn't slimy. Kind of reminds me of bread pudding.
I've tried polenta (restaurant and grocery store) and didn't really like the texture. But it was corn and not hominy.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday July 25 2014, @04:36AM
True, but hominy is better.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:10PM
If you're in a hurry, yeah, oatmeal is quick and easy.
Oatmeal, however, is $1/lb or more.
Processed foods cost more, so people on the bottom rung buy food as close to nature as possible.
OTOH, rice can be had for 33c/lb on sale and pintos for 50c/lb.
Bags of potatoes are also very affordable.
THAT is the kind of stuff people on the fringe are actually eating.
They buy in as much bulk as they can, cook in quantity, and freeze it in serving-size containers (e.g. margarine tubs--not tupperware that they'd have to buy).
The mercado near me runs a weekly special on veggies at 50c/lb or sometimes 33c/lb.
Add that to the carb+legume base that has been reheated and you have a minimum-wage meal.
Someone up the thread mentioned canned pasta.
That is ridiculously expensive for what you get.
People on the bottom rung buy dry pasta and make their own sauce, again, in quantity.
I've been watching the price of anything with vegetable oil in it.
The speculators have driven up those prices noticeably the last several years--but that's pretty much true for everything in sight.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday July 25 2014, @06:28AM
You're rich enough to own a freezer? Here's another thing, I save money by stocking up on stuff on sale, potatoes were only $5 for 20lbs last week so I bought a bag. If I'd had a cool room I would have bought 3 or 4 bags. Meat goes on sale and I wish I had freezer space to stock up. Even cans I can only have so many. There are many limitations when you're poor (and I'm not that poor) such as not having a freezer and sometimes not even a decent fridge, limited cupboard space, not to mention easy access to a cheap decent supermarket or better a variety of stores and markets allowing shopping around for good deals and the excess cash to buy larger quantities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @09:22PM
You're rich enough to own a freezer?
People making minimum wage any place I've been will be renters and will get an apartment that comes with a stove and refrigerator/freezer.
2 weeks worth of chow shouldn't be all -that- bulky.
Are cold-water flats still a thing where you are?
Even cans I can only have so many[...]limited cupboard space
Yup. Having to use e.g. bedroom space for a pantry and things like that is stuff that folks who have never struggled will never have to think about.
It also sounds like you're in an area where the apartments are exceptionally small.
I save money by stocking up on stuff on sale
Yes, I mentioned that that is a critical strategy.
excess cash to buy larger quantities
Right. The yin and the yang.
potatoes were only $5 for 20lbs
That's actually not a good price for potatoes.
I saw them last week for $1.29/10lb.
99c is not uncommon; I've seen that for 79c in the last year.
$1.59 is the worst I would consider a stock-up price.
Potatoes -are- very versatile.
Meat
...is a luxury item for this class of folks.
You don't need all that much vitamin B-12 and B-12 is the only reason you need to consume animal products.
You can get B-12 from milk, cheese, or eggs.
easy access to a cheap decent supermarket
Yes, that can be a big one.
For folks taking public transit to shop, it is a serious limitation.
"Food deserts" exist where the stores that are there have only junk food and no fresh produce (or none worth considering).
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:48PM
Not only that but you can also use oatmeal for foundation repair!
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:55PM
This is being attempted by people who are already in favor of raising the minimum wage, to demonstrate that we need to raise the minimum wage. They made up their minds on whether the minimum wage was livable well before starting. And, as they're engaging in political theatre, they have some incentive to play up how hard it is.
The people who oppose raising the minimum wage tend not to be participating. They ALSO made up their minds before starting whether raising the minimum wage is a good idea. Even if they participated, they'd likely have an incentive to play down how hard it is.
Nobody's learning anything from this they didn't already believe.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:28PM
The people not in favor of raising it think that you are not supposed to live on minimum wage. You are supposed to take that for a few months while you are still living with your parents, to generate a work history, so you can go get a job that pays more than that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:43PM
And where might we find these jobs that pay substantially better than minimum wage with just a few months of work history and a high school diploma? Please do enlighten us.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:17PM
I suggest the classified ads in a newspaper or Craigslist for starters. There are certain places you go to look for jobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:40AM
Craigslist
The republicans shut down that particular employer, something about the free market giving their sky daddy a sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:06PM
Since you haven't grabbed the clue, I'll give you a couple of hints. Most (the vast majority?) of the ads in the classifieds and on Craigslist are for jobs at, or just above, minimum wage. The few remaining jobs advertised, those which pay substantially better than minimum wage, all require quite a bit more than a high school diploma and "a few months work history". Before you come back at me with the canard that a good employee can just work his way up through the ranks inside the company, I will just point out that very few companies actually are interested in "employee professional development". And, yes, this is done intentionally as a way to further depress wages.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday July 25 2014, @12:34AM
You see, after you have been there 'a few months' you should have 1) demonstrated that you can meet your commitments and 2) learned some skills. See what a clutz the new guy they just hired is? He is always fumbling around or doing the wrong thing. That was you when you started.
But now you are not like that. Now you are the old hand that knows what to do. Your time is worth more than his. So ask for a raise.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @02:37AM
And when your boss denies you a raise because, "You're being paid the rate for your position", and no other jobs exist in the area, and you can't move because you either have no car since its impossible to afford one on minimum wage or you have other anchors in the area such as family, what then? Too fucking bad?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:43PM
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2192#comic [smbc-comics.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @09:59AM
Please, find 435 people who live on minimum wage and let them run congress for (at least) a week.
(Score: 1) by albert on Saturday July 26 2014, @01:53AM
Mostly you need to live on lentils, brown rice, and purple/red cabbage.
Add a tiny bit of animal stuff each day. Rotate among these: one sardine, a big spoon of plain yogurt, one anchovy, one hard-boiled egg, a spoonful of canned salmon.
(Score: 1) by albert on Saturday July 26 2014, @02:04AM
Who is going to give a kid his first job if he doesn't come cheap? Without a first job, there is no second job.
The fact that fully grown adults are trying to support families on teenager jobs is weird and sick, but that doesn't make it OK to price teenagers out of the market.
(Score: 1) by albert on Saturday July 26 2014, @02:21AM
Us well-off people get offended and scared by things that poor people can afford.
The sorts of cars being sold in India are not legal to sell in the USA. You can't sell a tuk-tuk here. That 2-stroke engine is not OK. Loading in people so they hang out the sides (no doors of course) is not allowed. You can't transport your family of 4 on a smallish motorcycle.
The sorts of homes being built in chad are not legal to build in the USA. The sorts of apartments built in the big Asian cities (lockable cage just big enough to hold a bed, stacked 2 or 3 high) are not legal in the USA. Haitian homes are also a no-go. You have to have a properly certified sewer connection or septic system, not the "flying toilet" thing. (look it up and go "WTF!") You have to have power. You have to have smoke alarms, now in every damn room and all wired together. You have to have solid (expensive) construction. In some places you even must install an AC system. There is a minimum lot size, both minimum and maximum lot coverage percentage, minimum frontage, maximum hight (hurts multi-family units), and minimum setbacks.
You can live on much less than minimum wage, but you can't legally do it in the USA.