A 124 Hour Work Week???

jillian

Princess
Apr 4, 2006
85,728
18,111
2,220
The Other Side of Paradise
That's what it would take for a NJ resident making minimum wage to afford the average two-bedroom rental in that State

New Jersey has dropped from the fourth most expensive state in which to rent to the fifth but that does not mean rents are any more affordable for thousands of people seeking decent housing, according to housing activists. They said today rental costs have jumped 43 percent in the state since 2000.

Rents are higher only in Hawaii, California, New York and Massachusetts.

An annual report released by the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey revealed at least 54 percent of wage earners seeking rental housing cannot afford the average $1,157-a-month rent for a two-bedroom apartment, plus utilities. Without paying more than 30 percent of income, a household must earn $3,857 monthly or $22.25 an hour for a 40-hour week. In order to afford the rent while making the minimum wage of $7.15 an hour, a wage earner would have to work 124 hours a week, or more than 19 hours a day.

(More)

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/n_j_rental_housing_remains_ver.html
 
Since when did people start expecting minimum wage to cover all things? It used to be that minimum wage jobs were stepping stones to bigger and better jobs. They were jobs teenagers took while in high school and living at home or they were jobs filled by college students looking for extra beer money.

When did the shift occur? When did people start expecting minimum wage would buy them a house or rent them a condo?
 
maaaybe when they started seeing those solid job opportunities shipped to india and replaced with low end service jobs...


not to be contentious but these are the types of jobs that were paraded around during the last 3 years as evidence of a stable economy despite where we all knew we were heading, yes?
 
maaaybe when they started seeing those solid job opportunities shipped to india and replaced with low end service jobs...

This makes sense, having been with the same job for 25 years, I guess the exporting of jobs hasn't really been on my radar. Which isn't to say that I was ignorant of what was happening, I guess I just hadn't given it too much thought.


not to be contentious but these are the types of jobs that were paraded around during the last 3 years as evidence of a stable economy despite where we all knew we were heading, yes?

Again, I would have to say that you are more than likely correct. The only thing I know for sure is that my personal economy has been and continues to be stable.
 
Since when did people start expecting minimum wage to cover all things? It used to be that minimum wage jobs were stepping stones to bigger and better jobs. They were jobs teenagers took while in high school and living at home or they were jobs filled by college students looking for extra beer money.

When did the shift occur? When did people start expecting minimum wage would buy them a house or rent them a condo?

You're still correct in how minimum wage is used. Entry level, though around here even 16 year olds at McD's are starting at $7.65 an hour. My daughter works part time at Yankee Candle, she's making $11.50 in a college town.

Anyone making minimum wage should not be renting a two bedroom home.
 
One thing our government (at the Federal level) really needs to do is to shut down the "less than full time" benefits loophole. This is how big companies (i.e. Wal-Mart) get around paying benefits to their employees.
 
You're still correct in how minimum wage is used. Entry level, though around here even 16 year olds at McD's are starting at $7.65 an hour. My daughter works part time at Yankee Candle, she's making $11.50 in a college town.

Anyone making minimum wage should not be renting a two bedroom home.

Umm.. I think that figure refers to renting a 2 bedroom apartment, not a house.

So now I guess you're next statement will be "anyone making minimum wage should not have children"?
 
I wouldn't say they shouldn't, but I would advise them to seriously think twice.

And if they drop out of the work force or school to have children, then hubby runs off and they have to get the only job they can do, which is probably a minimum wage job, should they then give up the kids?
 
And if they drop out of the work force or school to have children, then hubby runs off and they have to get the only job they can do, which is probably a minimum wage job, should they then give up the kids?

I don't know. I suppose that, if they want what is best for both the child and themselves, yes, they should. Speaking from my experience, it's tough enough to raise kids when you have a good paying job, I can't imagine trying to do it while earning minimum wage. In the end, I can only make decisions for me and mine. What other people do is up to them.
 
I don't know. I suppose that, if they want what is best for both the child and themselves, yes, they should. Speaking from my experience, it's tough enough to raise kids when you have a good paying job, I can't imagine trying to do it while earning minimum wage. In the end, I can only make decisions for me and mine. What other people do is up to them.

First of all thinking people should give up their children is silly. And you do realize that you're suggesting that this person who's ex left her in the lurch with the kids should now put those kids with strangers and ruin what's left of her life... because her job doesn't pay a living wage????

I'm afraid I couldn't get behind that since I'm not into kicking people when they're down.

All I'll finish by saying is that more than 50% of the cause of people being on public assistance is women finding themselves alone with the kids.
 
Umm.. I think that figure refers to renting a 2 bedroom apartment, not a house.

So now I guess you're next statement will be "anyone making minimum wage should not have children"?


they probably shouldn't bid in sailboats and european sports cars either.


if you cant feed em..
 
First of all thinking people should give up their children is silly. And you do realize that you're suggesting that this person who's ex left her in the lurch with the kids should now put those kids with strangers and ruin what's left of her life... because her job doesn't pay a living wage????

I'm afraid I couldn't get behind that since I'm not into kicking people when they're down.

All I'll finish by saying is that more than 50% of the cause of people being on public assistance is women finding themselves alone with the kids.

Or choosing to be alone with the kids. Having kids before finishing high school, then having more kids with different men, and never returning to school. Or becoming drug addicted or alcoholic, or just criminal.

Most of the women on welfare are not upstanding citizens, believe me. And many of them are single and childless, or have had their kids taken from them not because they're poor, but because the kids have been abused or neglected, or because they've given up the kids to their dads in order to chase after unsuitable men, or drugs, or both.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to support families of 3 or 4, and it would be wrong if we were to force them to that rate. If you aren't making enough money at the job you have, it's time to either take it back to school, or look for a better job, or start pulling ot, or whatever. You don't jack up minimum wage because you have a whole population of uneducated people and illegal immigrants who can't live in nice digs with their extended families on one min wage job.
 
Or choosing to be alone with the kids. Having kids before finishing high school, then having more kids with different men, and never returning to school. Or becoming drug addicted or alcoholic, or just criminal.

Except the news report was that it resulted from DIVORCE -- not unwed motherhood or drugs or promiscuity. But I suppose this means you're pro-choice?

Most of the women on welfare are not upstanding citizens, believe me.

And your link to that brain blip?


[/QUOTE]And many of them are single and childless, or have had their kids taken from them not because they're poor, but because the kids have been abused or neglected, or because they've given up the kids to their dads in order to chase after unsuitable men, or drugs, or both.[/QUOTE]

Again, before going on another rant, the news report was that it was the result of D-I-V-O-R-C-E. So try to stick with the subject instead of making stuff up as you go along.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to support families of 3 or 4, and it would be wrong if we were to force them to that rate. If you aren't making enough money at the job you have, it's time to either take it back to school, or look for a better job, or start pulling ot, or whatever. You don't jack up minimum wage because you have a whole population of uneducated people and illegal immigrants who can't live in nice digs with their extended families on one min wage job.

Okie dokie....
 
Calm down. Drug addicts and alcoholics and otherwise dysfunctional women get divorced repeatedly. One doesn't preclude the other, nitwit.

I work as a caseworker. I have yet to meet a woman (wait..there was one, and one only) who came in and said, "I need welfare because I've got these kids and we got divorced."
 
Calm down. Drug addicts and alcoholics and otherwise dysfunctional women get divorced repeatedly. One doesn't preclude the other, nitwit.

I work as a caseworker. I have yet to meet a woman (wait..there was one, and one only) who came in and said, "I need welfare because I've got these kids and we got divorced."

Who's not calm, cookie?... again, stop projecting. You're the one with the rants, not me.

You claim to do or have done every job that comes up: social worker, counselor to "cured" gays, journalist, lived on an Indian Reservation, were abused by "lib" parents, yadda, yadda, yadda ...... and frankly, your perception of reality is non-existent, so you'll forgive me if I would expect more than anecdotal evidence from you.

So, again...link?
 
First of all thinking people should give up their children is silly. And you do realize that you're suggesting that this person who's ex left her in the lurch with the kids should now put those kids with strangers and ruin what's left of her life... because her job doesn't pay a living wage????

I'm afraid I couldn't get behind that since I'm not into kicking people when they're down.

First of all, I stated that, if they want what is best for the child and themselves, it is something that should be considered. More often than not, things don't get better for people in the type of situation we are discussing. More often than not, the result of these type of situations is a continuing cycle of poverty, handed down from generation to generation.

As for putting her (and it could just as easily be a his) kid(s) with strangers, I would suggest that the first option would be to approach family, see if someone in the family can care for the kids until such a time the individual in question is on his or her feet and can care for them. It would beat the hell out of having them ripped from the arms of the parent by Child Services and being put in foster care. How many wind up on the streets? Homeless? Would it not be preferable for the children to be in a home? Even if they are with strangers?

For the record, I was kicking no one, while up or down. That's not my game. Quite frankly, I don't care what they do. It's their life, not mine. Their kids, not mine. As I stated previously, I can only make decisions for me and mine, and where my kids are concerned, I only want what is best for them with no regard for myself.

All I'll finish by saying is that more than 50% of the cause of people being on public assistance is women finding themselves alone with the kids.

And what percentage of that 50% come from homes that also had a single parent? What percentage are the result of unprotected sex with a boyfriend? what percentage are teenagers?
 
A real problem with a federal minimum wage is that there is large variance in the cost of living from state-to-state, and city-to-city. I wouldn't expect to live comfortably in Hawaii on the national minimum wage, but I suspect it'd be easier in rural America.

As for a minimum wage in general, it's a way to artificially set a minimum price for one hour of work. The problem is that many low-end jobs don't produce enough value to the employer to justify buying that hour of work. If hiring another worker adds $9/hour of productivity, and I have to spend $10/hour to get that productivity, I'm not going to do it. It's a bad business decision.

Furthermore, as the minimum price of human labor continues to climb, alternative means of production become much more attractive. Have you ever used the self-scanner to buy groceries? Ever used a ticket machine in a parking garage? The net result of these effects, as you might guess, is unemployment.

Lastly, if you're stuck in a minimum wage job, it probably implies you don't have a marketable skill. If you're going year-to-year without raises, and without learning / refining skills that employers value, then you're obviously not giving employers much incentive to promote you or give you new responsibilities that can increase your value to the company.

And when the next minimum wage hike comes around, who do you think will be first on the chopping block?
 
Who's not calm, cookie?... again, stop projecting. You're the one with the rants, not me.

You claim to do or have done every job that comes up: social worker, counselor to "cured" gays, journalist, lived on an Indian Reservation, were abused by "lib" parents, yadda, yadda, yadda ...... and frankly, your perception of reality is non-existent, so you'll forgive me if I would expect more than anecdotal evidence from you.

So, again...link?

I noticed that as well. She also claimed to have been on welfare even though she had a father and five uncles protecting the country.

:cuckoo:

DNC plant, there's no other explanation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top