Some Americans Willing to Work for 25 cents/Hour

[moonkitty]

That's not the question. If it was me being homeless without corporate managers unwilling to pay me minimum wage since I'm not even working, I'm quite sure I could tolerate ramen noodles everyday for as long as I'd need to. It seems like you're so disconnected between a person who has no choice. I understand that. You're probably comfortable, you've probably never been homeless and broke, you've probably never spent time with and talked to people who survive that way. When a person's in that desperate situation and they have the will to live, they endure even if that means eating ramen noodles everyday for months on end. But I don't think you really know anything about that world. I do.

Honey, I HAVE been homeless. Even when I was a teenager and living in a friend's garden shed with my mother, I made more than .25 an hour panhandling. And if you are really on the streets then ramen noodles are not a good choice since they need to be cooked.

My past is not something I am proud of, due to my mom's alcoholism I had a very tough life growing up, so I've been there and done that. And .25 cents and hour 20 years ago would not have been worth my time then. There was no way I'd spend 8 hours making 2$ Not when I could have been using that 8 hours looking for better work.

 

[cobweb]

Honey, I HAVE been homeless. Even when I was a teenager and living in a friend's garden shed with my mother, I made more than .25 an hour panhandling. And if you are really on the streets then ramen noodles are not a good choice since they need to be cooked.

My past is not something I am proud of, due to my mom's alcoholism I had a very tough life growing up, so I've been there and done that. And .25 cents and hour 20 years ago would not have been worth my time then. There was no way I'd spend 8 hours making 2$ Not when I could have been using that 8 hours looking for better work.

Me too (although my dad's place of employment burnt to the ground during the last big recession and that is why we were in that situation).

 

[Paulos23]

25 cents an hour is someone exploting someone else to lazy to look for work. I am willing to bet that most Americans that did this are already supported by someone else or a PT job and are just looking for a little extra cash. Having lived on $10,000 a year once (still above minum wage back then) I can't imagine living on ~$520 a year (52 weeks X 40 hours X 25 cents). There is no way anyone can survive on that for long. Maybe $2.50 an hour, but you would still need a free place to stay, and a cheep way to keep yourself enteraned when you where not working.

In short, people are not making a living off of 25 cents an hour. And if they are planning to, they fail at basic math (which may be the sadder statement).

 

[Zoooma]

Honey, I HAVE been homeless. Even when I was a teenager and living in a friend's garden shed with my mother, I made more than .25 an hour panhandling. And if you are really on the streets then ramen noodles are not a good choice since they need to be cooked.

...There was no way I'd spend 8 hours making 2$ Not when I could have been using that 8 hours looking for better work.

The EARNING $2 in 8 hours in question here is not about being homeless but about being in a home and unemployed.

The unemployment right now in Obama's economy has many people in a desperate situation. When someone is without any income whatsoever, even a few bucks starts to look really nice.

Some people have looked for work to the point where they simply cannot look any more. Towns and cities across America are not all huge with unlimited possibilities that can keep a person busy looking for a job 10 hours a day everyday. That's simply not the case. In many places, a person has done all they can do. Maybe they can make some follow-up phone calls and/or stop by every now and then and ask, but the long days of looking are done. It's totally done.

Therefore, if you have no other options, if you can't go panhandle, if you can't collect aluminum cans, maybe you get this fictional job at home where you have the opportunity to make $2 in a day versus sitting on your ass making 0 dollars. Would you really opt for the 0 dollars when you have no food to eat? Who in their right mind would do that? Hopefully no one.

So this has nothing to do with a homeless person spending 8 hours making $2 through this fictional job.

And ramen noodles do not need to be cooked. I've eaten them without cooking them. I have no way to make a video so if you wanna mail me a video camera of some kind or come over to my house I'll happily show you.

 

[Zoooma]

25 cents an hour is someone exploting someone else to lazy to look for work.

Not true. Read above.

 

[Supreme]

25 cents an hour is someone exploting someone else to lazy to look for work. I am willing to bet that most Americans that did this are already supported by someone else or a PT job and are just looking for a little extra cash. Having lived on $10,000 a year once (still above minum wage back then) I can't imagine living on ~$520 a year (52 weeks X 40 hours X 25 cents). There is no way anyone can survive on that for long. Maybe $2.50 an hour, but you would still need a free place to stay, and a cheep way to keep yourself enteraned when you where not working.

In short, people are not making a living off of 25 cents an hour. And if they are planning to, they fail at basic math (which may be the sadder statement).

I agree with this. 0.25 cents isn't a paycheck someone who was serious about working would receive. It's barely any money whatsoever.

 

[keith99]

Honey, I HAVE been homeless. Even when I was a teenager and living in a friend's garden shed with my mother, I made more than .25 an hour panhandling. And if you are really on the streets then ramen noodles are not a good choice since they need to be cooked.

My past is not something I am proud of, due to my mom's alcoholism I had a very tough life growing up, so I've been there and done that. And .25 cents and hour 20 years ago would not have been worth my time then. There was no way I'd spend 8 hours making 2$ Not when I could have been using that 8 hours looking for better work.

I have not been homeless. But I grew up in less paranoid times and that meant having freedom as a child. If things came to filling me stomach I can get more than 25 cents an hour worth of food by wandering around and finding fruit on trees.

Which is just one more way of saying the impression given by the article is totally bogus.

 

[BondiHarry]

Sure you would. If you make less than it takes to pay your rent or property taxes, as well as feed yourself, you'd be losing money taking the job.


This is what I don't understand about the argument for a completely free market. These people are willing to work for a wage that is literally impossible to live off of in America, because there is no other option for them. According to the free market, they "agreed to the wage," so it's fair and just, but can someone in a position like that really be said to agree to a wage?

How about letting the worker looking for a job determine what they will work for? There are people willing to work for say $5 an hour and employers willing to hire them for that but the worker remains unemployed because the government has priced them out of the job market.

The minimum wage is just another way the govenment hurts the very people it likes to think it is helping and is yet another way that government inflates the prices consumers would otherwise pay ... that and the regulations that add to the costs of business with little if any discernible benefit.

 

[cobweb]

I agree. Can't get a retail job? There are a gazillion fast food places in this country that pay more than $.25/hr. I've worked fast food before. It is a crappy job, but it is a paycheck. They are usually very happy to hire adults.

Can't speak or read English? Janitorial staffing services pay more than minimum wage. The only requirements here are that you are legal to work, willing to work nights, and are physically able to push a mop.

Telephone call centers pay even more and you don't have to do anything physically demanding. If you can be polite on the phone and have ANY computer skills you could make more than minimum wage.

The only desperate people who would be doing the $.25/hr job are those who CAN'T or WON'T work outside their home.

 

[Paulos23]

Not true. Read above.

Honestly, it is. If someone is willing to work for 25 cents an hour they are being exploted. I know of people on the street right now, very capable of working who do not want to work. They get more in handouts then 25 cents an hour. But they don't want to work.

I have also met people that have a home, living off of unemployment, looking for work and would probably do this for a few days to help pass the time. But in no way are they doing it as a living wage.

This isn't a sign of desperation to work, this is a sign of boardom from looking for a job. If people where being paid a few dollars bellow the minum wage on a job and they took it, that would be desperation. All this study shows is people are board at home.

 

[cobweb]

Heck... my Dad even worked as a day laborer at one point. Go stand outside Home Depot. You'll make more than $.25/hr.

 

[lux et lex]

I think you're missing out on what exactly Mechanical Turk is. Go check it out on Amazon's website. http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome

 

[Harpuia]

How about letting the worker looking for a job determine what they will work for? There are people willing to work for say $5 an hour and employers willing to hire them for that but the worker remains unemployed because the government has priced them out of the job market.

The minimum wage is just another way the govenment hurts the very people it likes to think it is helping and is yet another way that government inflates the prices consumers would otherwise pay ... that and the regulations that add to the costs of business with little if any discernible benefit.

Many of the people that desperate to work for so little usually have their self-esteem shot by the economy, other people, etc. etc. I know that I was told by local conservatives in this area that an engineer should only be worth minimum wage because that's how much an Indian engineer is willing to work in India. With that terrible negativity to self-esteem, it's no wonder so many are willing to work for so little.

And the fallacy is that in a race to the bottom, employees have to be willing to work for less and less so that they can keep their job.

 

[BondiHarry]

Many of the people that desperate to work for so little usually have their self-esteem shot by the economy, other people, etc. etc. I know that I was told by local conservatives in this area that an engineer should only be worth minimum wage because that's how much an Indian engineer is willing to work in India. With that terrible negativity to self-esteem, it's no wonder so many are willing to work for so little.

And the fallacy is that in a race to the bottom, employees have to be willing to work for less and less so that they can keep their job.

Imagine the shock to self-esteem when you want a job, have an employer lined up to hire you but society steps in and prevents you from getting that job because their idealism on what you should be paid is more important than you being able to make decisions for your life.

We keep hearing from the statists how capitalism is based on greed yet it is the statists who will mandate employers be forced to pay employees wages higher than the market warrants, who create entitlement programs that people are forced to support without their consent (consent of the governed means little when others can decide what is done with the money you earn whether you consent or not) so they can tap into the money that people make, who create 'rights' to education or health care that impose on society the obligation to educate or treat people at a fraction of the cost such education or treatment actually costs. And a funny thing about such 'rights' is that people often put little value to those things that other people pay for. When you're not spending your own hard earned money for education the compulsion to get good grades and be successful fades away and when other people can be forced to pay for your health care people are far more likely to indulge in bad habits that harm them like smoking, drug abuse, not exercising etc.

It is a very sobering thought knowing that YOU are responsible for your life and if you make bad decisions like not applying yourself in school you will wind up getting only those low paying jobs and if you don't take care of yourself physically you can get sick and suffer. One of the worst things about statism is that it punishes the responsible and protects the fool from his folly which tends to prevent the fool from learning from his folly and changing his ways. Statists of course call this heartless indifference to the suffering of those in need if the fool isn't protected but the need is usually caused by people not learning how to be responsible.

I just find it sad that so many people have so little understanding about how a free market actually works. Employers are not free to pay employees wages below the market value (a couple of things happen when they do try, one is that competitors will see the opportunity to snag quality workers and a bidding war will begin for their services OR disgruntled employees will leave and do something else or start their own company), they are not free to charge whatever price they want (again that competition thing) and they cannot embrace shoddy practices which endanger employee safety (lawsuits) or leads to poorly made or defective products (crummy quality leads to losing business to competitors and defective products again can lead to lawsuits).

 

[Umaro]

How about letting the worker looking for a job determine what they will work for? There are people willing to work for say $5 an hour and employers willing to hire them for that but the worker remains unemployed because the government has priced them out of the job market.

The minimum wage is just another way the govenment hurts the very people it likes to think it is helping and is yet another way that government inflates the prices consumers would otherwise pay ... that and the regulations that add to the costs of business with little if any discernible benefit.

Because that leads to exploitation. The whole "agreed upon wage" only works when both sides can exert some form of leverage to reach a mutually beneficial conclusion. If the cards are stacked so that only one side has the power, the other side gets shafted. We've seen it happen in the past.

Say tomorrow all the fast food places just announced they were going to cut wages to $2 an hour. What do you think would happen? Would all those workers quit their job? Of course not, and even the few that did would be instantly replaced. McDonalds would have no reason not to do this, as they'd save a bundle of money. Everyone else on the other hand would be one step closer in the race to the bottom.

 

[BondiHarry]

Because that leads to exploitation. The whole "agreed upon wage" only works when both sides can exert some form of leverage to reach a mutually beneficial conclusion. If the cards are stacked so that only one side has the power, the other side gets shafted. We've seen it happen in the past.

Say tomorrow all the fast food places just announced they were going to cut wages to $2 an hour. What do you think would happen? Would all those workers quit their job? Of course not, and even the few that did would be instantly replaced. McDonalds would have no reason not to do this, as they'd save a bundle of money. Everyone else on the other hand would be one step closer in the race to the bottom.

Umaro, you don't understand how free markets work. The market will determine the value of ones work, not some arbitrary decision by an employer. If an employer tries paying employees too little they will get few people to work for them and won't be able to compete due to lack of manpower. If all the fast food places colluded in this people would quit and believe it or not some consumers would boycott those places. Competitors would be attracted to that market and by offering a higher wage could get an already experienced work force to join them (granted flipping burgers isn't highly skilled labor but it is not cost effective for a company to train an employee, short change them on wages and lose them to a competitor who will offer a higher salary). The start up costs for a burger joint aren't great (although government regulations are making start ups harder and harder) so if employers tried doing what you suggest within a few months or a year or two they will be faced with the choice of either rasing wages to remain competitive or losing money and perhaps going out of business.

So you see, the free market DOES exert pressure on employers. Plus there is the little matter about God who is the source of all wealth rewarding the good stewards of His wealth and punishing the unfaithful stewards.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Umaro, you don't understand how free markets work. The market will determine the value of ones work, not some arbitrary decision by an employer. If an employer tries paying employees too little they will get few people to work for them and won't be able to compete due to lack of manpower.

This would be true if there were more jobs than people. However, unemployment levels mean that people will take what they can get. People are not going to voluntarily walk away from work. You only have to look at countries where workers rights are not enforced to see how much they can get away with.

If all the fast food places colluded in this people would quit and believe it or not some consumers would boycott those places. Competitors would be attracted to that market and by offering a higher wage could get an already experienced work force to join them (granted flipping burgers isn't highly skilled labor but it is not cost effective for a company to train an employee, short change them on wages and lose them to a competitor who will offer a higher salary). The start up costs for a burger joint aren't great (although government regulations are making start ups harder and harder) so if employers tried doing what you suggest within a few months or a year or two they will be faced with the choice of either rasing wages to remain competitive or losing money and perhaps going out of business.

Or lowering prices because they don't have to pay workers as much, and out-pricing competitors who are then forced (or have an excuse) to lower wages themselves. If anyone leaves, fine, they can pick the next person on the ever increasing list of people looking for work. Those immigrants coming here to look for work aren't doing so because they feel like it - most of them are doing it to get away from the exact situation you're arguing for, and they'll happily work for less.

So you see, the free market DOES exert pressure on employers. Plus there is the little matter about God who is the source of all wealth rewarding the good stewards of His wealth and punishing the unfaithful stewards.

Which would be wonderful if all companies were led by devout Christians who actually cared.

The near-deification of the free market that some people do is very dangerous indeed. Lack of interference and regulation is what brought us into this recession, yet some people remain convinced, in the face of all evidence and reality itself, that the same thing will magic us out. If they want to turn the west into the third world, they can just move to Africa. Very free market there, and that's done wonders for them.

 

[Paulos23]

Unregulated free market has brought us child labor, pollution, poor working conditions, and poor wages. Don't believe me? Look at the average factory during the hight of the industrial revolution. You will see why we have regulations and why unions formed.

 

[Harpuia]

Imagine the shock to self-esteem when you want a job, have an employer lined up to hire you but society steps in and prevents you from getting that job because their idealism on what you should be paid is more important than you being able to make decisions for your life.

I'm sure that everyone, even pessimists feel that we at minimum need enough for food and a roof over their head.

We keep hearing from the statists how capitalism is based on greed yet it is the statists who will mandate employers be forced to pay employees wages higher than the market warrants, who create entitlement programs that people are forced to support without their consent (consent of the governed means little when others can decide what is done with the money you earn whether you consent or not) so they can tap into the money that people make, who create 'rights' to education or health care that impose on society the obligation to educate or treat people at a fraction of the cost such education or treatment actually costs. And a funny thing about such 'rights' is that people often put little value to those things that other people pay for. When you're not spending your own hard earned money for education the compulsion to get good grades and be successful fades away and when other people can be forced to pay for your health care people are far more likely to indulge in bad habits that harm them like smoking, drug abuse, not exercising etc.

The ambition also fades away when you're paying $100,000 to go to college just to land a job that pays a couple dollars over minimum wage because the market says college graduates are too diluted.

It is a very sobering thought knowing that YOU are responsible for your life and if you make bad decisions like not applying yourself in school you will wind up getting only those low paying jobs and if you don't take care of yourself physically you can get sick and suffer. One of the worst things about statism is that it punishes the responsible and protects the fool from his folly which tends to prevent the fool from learning from his folly and changing his ways. Statists of course call this heartless indifference to the suffering of those in need if the fool isn't protected but the need is usually caused by people not learning how to be responsible.

I'm pro-capitalist, but one of the worst things about capitalism is that it punishes the responsible moreso than statism does. In capitalism, when a bunch of people go out of control it creates a bubble, much like how college tuition is at now. Those that actually want to do well in college and get a good job are piled in with those who use college as four years of high school sans parents. When they all graduate, there isn't much variance, and landing a job is moreso based on your connections (in other words, people your parents know) than your grades or achievements.

Capitalism isn't a meritocracy by any means and you don't have total control. You don't have control of your own destiny. I'm not saying statism is different. You don't have control of your destiny in completely different ways. But in capitalism calling it total control is not true at all. It requires luck, and a better starting position in life.

I just find it sad that so many people have so little understanding about how a free market actually works. Employers are not free to pay employees wages below the market value (a couple of things happen when they do try, one is that competitors will see the opportunity to snag quality workers and a bidding war will begin for their services OR disgruntled employees will leave and do something else or start their own company), they are not free to charge whatever price they want (again that competition thing) and they cannot embrace shoddy practices which endanger employee safety (lawsuits) or leads to poorly made or defective products (crummy quality leads to losing business to competitors and defective products again can lead to lawsuits).

Are you really sure about that? The average wage of an engineer/computer programmer around my area has dropped almost 40% in real value from 10 years ago. Many are trying to get programmers for minimum wage, and they could go lower if necessary. To me, that's a definite race to the bottom.

 

[keith99]

...
Are you really sure about that? The average wage of an engineer/computer programmer around my area has dropped almost 40% in real value from 10 years ago. Many are trying to get programmers for minimum wage, and they could go lower if necessary. To me, that's a definite race to the bottom.

Anyone who tries to get a programmer at minumum wage or even 2 to 3 times minimum wage is asking for trouble. At best they will get a somewhat competent and poorly motivated employee. In a job where 1 bad keystroke can destroy things minimum wage employees are a very poor idea.

Heck, I know a guy who runs a landscaping and general fix up company, he doesn't have a single guy working for him at minimum wage. The minimum is about 1 1/2 times that.