$15 an hour == $100k a year, Apparently. : facepalm

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 125 points 2 months ago

$100k a year at 40 hours a week is $48.08 an hour, which might be even easier to see how far off of reality they are.

[-] Lyra_Lycan 43 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'd vote for that as min wage

Generally everyone has two weeks off so I use $/h * 2000 to get earnings pre tax, or 15(50*40). There are also ~~sick days~~ mental health days and bank holidays, so it could be better, but 2,000 is such a nice number

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I wouldn't go quite that high right off the bat, but...

Just peg a full time, min wage, locally (metro area locally), to ~~1/3~~ 3x (EDIT, whoops, mathed backwards) the median price of renting a studio apartment.

Would this be an economically perfect policy?

Fuuuuck no.

Would this actually enable, at least theoretically, an 18 yo kicked out of the family house upon high school graduation, as is the cultural norm in most of America, to actually be at least theoretically capable of providing for themselves and starting their own life?

Again, assuming jobs actually exist, yes.

This would be the bare minimum needed to make the insanely out off touch asshole boomer logic even mildly line up with reality.

...

For my next policy:

All those with student loan debt, where those students were goaded into that student debt by their parents saying they'd never have a good paying career without a college education, where those students have also been underemployed (a job or jobs not actually crtitically reliant on their degree) for a period of 5 years or more...

Congrats students! That debt is now dischargable in a bankruptcy, and it becomes the responsibility of said parents, for whom it is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Unrealistic?

Yes.

Fundamentally legally impossible?

Also probably yes.

... Morally correct, in spirit?

Oh, oh hell yes, yes.

...

For my third policy:

Graduated municipal landlord taxes based on how much a landlord charges a rental tenant for rent, in addition to existing property taxes.

If you are renting out a property for say, double area median rent for comparable sq ft, num bedrooms, etc? Well, now the landlord pays additional tax on that exorbitant rent.

Doesn't totally murder the profit motive, but highly disincentivizes putting high value homes and condos on the market for rent (and would thus incentivize putting them on the market actually for sale, at a reasonable price), incentivizes building modest new apartment buildings instead of only 'luxury' apartments.

All the proceeds of this tax of course go into funding housing subsidies for the poor, or directly building new, municipally operated, non profit apartment complexes.

... Just play the uno reverse card on the landlords, tax their rent extraction.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

directly building new, municipally operated, non profit apartment complexes

This is the crux of the answer if you want to solve housing prices, it doesn't really matter how you pay for it...but I like your way of paying for it

[-] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 months ago

I assume you mean 3 times the cost of a studio apartment, not 1/3, unless you think every minimum wage worker should be sharing their studio apartment with 5 other roommates.

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ah, yes, it was near midnight when I made that post, I may have gotten the 'rent should be 1/3rd your income' rule backwards or inverted, or otherwise phrased clumsily!

[-] Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

If you don't get paid time off do you have to take it? Up here in Canada most full time jobs (at least all the ones I've had) have two weeks paid vacation after the first year. Here's an Indeed article being way more clear than I could be.

Min wage hourly doesn't come with guaranteed time off, but I think the pay gets added to each paycheck? Don't quote me, it's been ages since I was an hourly guy.

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In the US, functionally, basically no min wage jobs get any vacation or sick days.

Nearly all these jobs have managers who will only allow you to schedule vacation in weird little blocks when its convenient for them, and then either right before you go on vacation, they cancel it, or you do go on vacation, and they claim you never scheduled it... you are fired if you do not abadon your vacation for work.

With sick days, if you take one, you aren't a team player, if you take two, your next minor infraction or dumb petty bullshit a coworker makes up about you... you are fired.

Wooo! America.

And that is on top of: Basically all min wage jobs will min max your weekly hours so you just barely don't actually pass the threshold for qualifying for any real health benefits and/or vacation/sick day accrual.

Oh and you are basically always on call, because you need to come fill some other shift that isn't filled for some reason having to do with the manager being incompetent at managing, but they'll gaslight the fuck out of everyone and say its everyone else fault.

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Oh and you are basically always on call, because you need to come fill some other shift that isn’t filled for some reason having to do with the manager being incompetent at managing

How about the recent trend (past decade or so) of managers requiring their employees to find their own call-out coverage? To all the young people who've never known anything else: that is not normal. Finding coverage is part of the "managing" that your manager gets paid to do. Outside of the hyper abusive retail and service jobs, management doesn't make you do that.

When one of my former managers attempted to implement that shit in a nursing home during the height of Covid, HR was appalled and nipped it in the bud. It's absurd and manipulative to expect a sick employee to call around/beg their coworkers to give up their day off, just because management failed to manage a full roster of coverage that accounts for potential call-outs.

Also, it's absolutely reasonable to not want to share your contact information with all your coworkers. If you don't actually know someone, you don't have to exchange phone numbers with them. You have a right to protect your privacy.

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How about the recent trend (past decade or so) of managers requiring their employees to find their own call-out coverage?

This has been the norm my entire life, and my first min wage job was in the mid 00's, mid 2000's.

I guess I just also assumed people knew this was and has been the norm basically forever, this is what I meant by 'managers not actually managing and gaslighting you into doing their job for them.'

All your points and details are correct though.

I guess we can also tack on the nonsense American workplace cultural norm of:

Your boss can basically fire you on a whim, in many common scenarios...

But you as an employee are expected to give two weeks notice before you quit.

This is more widespread and isn't unique to min wage service/retail jobs... but this also literally makes no fucking sense and every European I've explained this to has been appalled by the concept.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

I was briefly a minimum wage worker at a grocery store and that was my experience. I was a college student just making extra spending money and trying to be responsible. I didn't need the job at all. I put in time off for my vacation and my manager was weird saying I couldn't do that. And I didn't really say it directly but it's like, the vacation is already planned. I'm going. The system approved it, too. You can't make me not go. If you're going to reprimand me, you can. If you're going to fire me, you can, but I'm going.

I can't imagine how fucking awful that environment would be like if that's your primary method of supporting your family.

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

Yep.

Basically all min wage job managers are petty tyrants, little baby fascists.

As Jello Biafra put it: Take this job and shove it.

[-] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

After m'roads?

[-] CH3DD4R_G0BL1N@sh.itjust.works 48 points 2 months ago

Lots of great comments in here but somehow no one brought up that the federal minimum wage is still only $7.25/hr.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 25 points 2 months ago

Some moron on Facebook was talking about how Trump raised the minimum wage because major brands like Walmart started paying $15 an hour (or whatever specific amount) at the lowest they offer new hires. I told her that, no, that's not what "raising the minimum wage" means. She insisted that because of Trump's brilliant economic prowess it allowed these companies to pay more.

Like, yeah, turns out of the federal minimum wage is so low that basically no one wants to work for it then people need to pay more to get workers. (I'm aware people still work for the actual minimum wage in case that isn't somehow abundantly clear.)

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

People can work for less, under the table or via wage theft. Very common in the lowest tiers of sex work, in house cleaning services, and in the agricultural sector where human trafficking is common place

[-] frostysauce@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Goodwill pays less than the federal minimum wage to disabled people.

[-] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Lol that's amazing. And sad.

It's sad how little people know about how their world works. I always knew they knew less than they let on, but hoo boy are they just putting shit like this out there these days. Proudly ignorant.

I promise I'm raising my kids better. Almost done with the first! Shame there's such a gap between em though...

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

She's not even ignorant. From the back and forth it was clear she knew that the federal minimum wage is still $7.25. It's like willful double think. I hate it. I've since emotionally detached from online "debates" and I feel better.

[-] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It's for the best

[-] Irelephant@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

7.25, including tips.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 11 points 2 months ago

Usually with tips it's like $2.13 or something. For wait staff that gets tips they're allowed to be paid less hourly. Their total pay for the day still has to be at least the federal minimum wage though.

Tips are so weird.

[-] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They're weird because of the Jim Crow South. Ain't that fun? Go on, dig into it. I'll wait here in Jim Crow 2: Electric Boogaloo

Which, by the way, was the whole point of the Boogaloo Boys. Yall remember the fascists in Hawaiian shirts? Yeah. This has been planned for a while.

[-] Inucune@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago

Could not get it through a coworker's head that there is something fundamentally wrong with expecting people to work at jobs lower than COL. They just say that person should get a better job if it doesn't pay bills... Not everyone gets that opportunity.

Fuck you-got mine mindset.

[-] echolalia@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago

They're just admitting that they think that the folk who put their food on the shelves, answer phones for them and clean the facilities don't deserve a good life.

They have no problem being served by capitalism's underclass.

[-] Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago

They just say that person should get a better job if it doesn’t pay bills…

And someone else will have to fill the position they left behind.

People who argue that certain jobs don't merit a living wage are just admitting that they believe society is dependent upon the economic exploitation of a permanent underclass. This is the same exact argument the pro-slavery movement made prior to the Civil War.

[-] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago

365 days a year * 24 hours a day * $15 = $131,400. So their estimate was short by $31,000, but it was just an estimate! Stop making fun of them for being a little wrong in their math.

[-] Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 months ago

Who needs to sleep anyways!

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago

365.25 days * 18 hours, 15 minutes and 14 seconds * $15 = $100,000

Since the average human can stay alive for extended periods with 5 hours of sleep per night, there is nearly 45 minutes of free time per day included where the employees can take toilet breaks and eat! What a great job actually.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

People opposed to a living wage honestly don't give a shit about the math.

They're not thinking. They're just regurgitating something they saw on social media or their preferred news agency.

[-] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 months ago

Maybe it's just an own-goal admitting it costs $100k a year to live wherever they do.

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

If that guy could read, he'd be super mad you called him out.

[-] Irelephant@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

He could read the ~~conservatives~~ grifters arguing against a livable wage just fine.

[+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago

[deleted]

[-] matlag@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

I'm wondering if genius twitter here didn't negociate an hour rate that he thought would get him in the 6 figures club and is learning that... hell no it won't!

[-] thoughtfuldragon 4 points 2 months ago

Would actually get quality service at that price.

[-] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 points 2 months ago

The rule of thumb is super easy: 2x hourly rate = yearly income in thousands. How can someone screw up this badly?

Facepalm