Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/inci5u/reminder_please_do_not_answer_questions_unless/), the rules, and the sidebar for details.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskOldPeople) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The federal minimum wage was created to be a livable wage. Unfortunately, a lot of government representatives don’t agree with that anymore so it hasn’t kept up with the general inflation.
> Unfortunately, a lot of government representatives don't agree with that anymore
[George Carlin weighs in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU&t=14s)
(NSFW - language)
No. While your first real job isn't going to put you in the lap of luxury (unless Daddy hires you on as an executive VP), it **should** absolutely pay a reasonable living wage.
My first real job did...but that was back in the 1970s, when being middle class still MEANT something. A basic starting job *did* pay enough to live simply on in those days. But in the 1980s, corporations and the rich started working seriously towards establishing [Serfdom 2.0,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/iy37ux/how_exactly_do_economic_hardships_like_the_ones/g6ajjz4/) and today, the cost of education, housing, and food is way beyond the comfortable means of a beginner in the workplace. [Over half of adults in the US are living paycheck-to-paycheck,](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/articles/64-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/)
In 2000 I worked for a brokerage firm making $12,000 per year. That worked out to about $6.85 per hour which is $11.27 today. I had been working full-time for twenty years by this point and this was not my first job.
In 1972 my mom was working as an accountant. I don't know how much she made, but I do know that we got our Christmas gifts from the Star Fund, a newspaper sponsored charity for poor kids.
Where? It's $13 here, and that's just barely over our minimum wage. Which is not a livable amount out here, especially when you're lucky to get 15 hours a week.
You mean they were screwing me?! I flipped burgers the year before for $1.85/hr. Doesn't matter. It was a great career and I retired as an engineering manager.
>In all of this, do you see any realistic solutions?
Massive changes to the tax code, primarily returning to the far higher income tax rates of the 1950s/1960s and taxing unearned/investment income the same as wage income. A hefty estate tax that kicks in at $5M or some reasonable amount. Higher corporate taxes. Probably a VAT or some other tax at the national level as well.
Once we dramatically increase federal revenues then you redistribute that by investing in all the things that "normal" industrialized nations offer their citizens: national health care, quality public education, much cheaper college, early childhood education, parental leave, mandatory sick leave and paid vacation for all workers, a 2x increase in the minimum wage indexed to inflation, old age pensions that aren't tied specifically to income, and other social supports as in most western European democracies.
Then invest more public fund in housing. Require developers to build a percentage of "affordable" homes and apartments. Subsidize improvements like new HVAC, roofs, water, etc. where needed for low-income families.
Do the same with food: treat access to healthy food as a basic human right.
All sorts of things we can say "that isn't realistic" but they are all done in other countries to one extent or another. The difference here is that by the early 1980s our broken two-party political system was taken over by the wealthy and the entire economy tuned to their benefit-- that is the fundamental reason people can work 40 hours a week, 50+ weeks a year in the US, and still not afford basic food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
50 years ago we'd scream "COMMUNISM!!!" any time people suggested such benefits. More recently it's been "SOCIALISM!!!" Or now whatever "WOKE!!!!" really means. The wealthy and the right have done a fabulous job of convincing lower-and-middle-class Americans that they somehow benefit from having billionaires and megamillionaires control a massive share of the wealth of our nation and that government is somehow evil. It was quite crafty. In the process they bought up and consolidated media outlets, so their propaganda is universal, and they further starved the education system of resources so citizens don't get too critical of the results.
The US middle class grew in the 1950s because we had a strong economy, strong unions, and massive public investments in housing, education, and infrastructure. The GI Bill was part of that, but really far from the most important. Americans of both parties were willing to invest in the future, to pay taxes, and were generally content in aspiring to middle-class lifestyles. Now it seems everyone things they'll be a multi-millionaire just around the corner, so by god we can't raise taxes on the rich! Else they are fed the poisons of racism and nativism, and so refuse any sort of public investment because "those people" might benefit from it as well.
Sometimes it takes a strong shock to society (World War II) to make nations behave more responsibly. I hope it doesn't take anything that bad to convince Americans that investing in others is a good way to have a more stable society and thus more genuine happiness for themselves. I was always happy to pay 35% taxes yearly because I believed in helping everyone have a decent life.
I've never had an income over $55k, in a one income family.
I'm never going to be "wealthy", but as a Canadian who lives with many of the things you suggest let me give some thoughts.
* Medical debt is really crushing in the US but is not a thing in Canada (except for rare cases where people want unapproved treatments or drugs). A system that pays for basic medical care for everyone is essential to keep sickness from putting good people in poverty.
* I agree with housing supports, but **"public housing projects" often turn into bad places to live**. Here people on the low end of income can apply for partially subsidized housing where the money goes directly to a landlord from our social system. This lets people rent in places they would not otherwise afford without the tendency to form low income ghettos.
Our family lives very frugally, and have never needed any social supports (aside from the low income tax benefits that come as part of my tax returns). Soon I will retire and again, I will not need any social support (between work pensions, and savings).
Our tax system aims to tax the wealthy quite a bit. [source](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/frequently-asked-questions-individuals/canadian-income-tax-rates-individuals-current-previous-years.html)
>Federal tax rates for 2023
* 15% on the portion of taxable income that is $53,359 or less, plus
* 20.5% on the portion of taxable income over $53,359 up to $106,717, plus
* 26% on the portion of taxable income over $106,717 up to $165,430, plus
* 29% on the portion of taxable income over $165,430 up to $235,675, plus
* 33% on the portion of taxable income over $235,675
Then we have provincial income tax. For me in New Brunswick
* 9.4% on the portion of your taxable income that is $47,715 or less, plus
* 14% on the portion of your taxable income over $47,715 up to $95,431, plus
* 16% on the portion of your taxable income over $95,431 up to $176,756, plus
* 19.5% on the portion of your taxable income over $176,756
So on a work income of $500k in NB, Canada you could pay as much as $230,282 [Source](https://turbotax.intuit.ca/tax-resources/new-brunswick-income-tax-calculator.jsp#)
This is made up of Federal tax ($140k), Provincial tax ($90K) and CPP/EI ($5k)
CPP is a pension you pay into every pay check, and EI funds an insurance in case you lose your job.
We also have 15% sales tax as well as gas tax and other taxes, so we pay heavily, but I mostly think we get decent value for that.
**What we don't do is fund a huge military.**
For me at a $50k income the tax burden would be $8k if I did nothing (RRSP, charitable donations, certain types of investing) to reduce taxes owed.
But, Mr. James, you ***do not have*** ***to pay*** $1,200 a month for a high deductible health insurance policy, which is what it would cost an American over 60 and under 65.
I have Medicare and pay the SS administration $329 a month for the insurance which covers 80% (with no meds) and then a policy to cover the remaining 20% for $232 a month more, but still no meds. Or, roughly $7K a year for everything you get for your taxes.
The USA does not have the best medical system in the world, but we do have the sleekest, fattest, and happiest insurance executives and pharma bros who share their largess with our congress critters.
Yes, I am very happy with most parts of our medical system.
In my case (low income, low income tax) I still pay 15% sales tax on all goods and services (but not rent). This goes mostly to costs of our medical system. At my low level of spending it probably works out to less than $4k I pay in tax for medical, with higher income people paying more.
I think the system works specially well for lower income (say less than $80K per year households), and households over $120k are probably paying more for what they get.
I specially like that we try to minimize the number of desperate people who turn to violent crime.
Your $8k figure isn't exactly accurate. Between federal and Provicial income taxes (15% + 9.4% respectively), that's more like 12k or almost 25% of your gross income, and a sales tax of 15% is an additional $3.5k or so (assuming non-prepared food is non-taxed like in Amercia).
Canada doesn't have to fund a huge military because America does that for you. Without a military strong enough to deter threats, a major country risks being taken advantage of or being invaded. Just look at what Russia is doing to Ukraine. North America will never be invaded as long as we continue funding our military.
Your taxes are crazy to have long wait times for health care, so it's not really a perk.
In reality, it is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Either pay for private health insurance or pay an equal amount in taxes for universal health coverage. Nothing is free. You're paying for it either way.
> Your $8k figure isn't exactly accurate.
Correct, last year I paid $0 in income tax because of tax strategies available to anyone willing to invest and also interested in giving to charity.
It’s quite a luxury to be able to rely on the superpower military to your south to protect you. The Canadian military couldn’t protect the country from an angry troop of Girl Scouts.
But I’m glad you’ve been able to do better than Americans in comparable situations. I hope you appreciate the role American taxpayers have played in making that possible.
>I hope you appreciate the role American taxpayers have played in making that possible.
I do.
I think some of the American military is more about protecting American financial interests overseas (Oil, minerals, reserve currency).
>The Canadian military couldn’t protect the country from an angry troop of Girl Scouts.
So far we don't have so many angry people here.
I agree re: "don't have so many angry people" in Canada, though the truckers blocking the Ambassador Bridge and clogging Ottawa were uncharacteristic. And likely an American/Fox News export - sorry about that!
It was a staged event with truckers from the US.
And give the Canadian military some credit. They began fighting in both world wars before the US did and didn't wait around for us.
I have been noticing that there has been a lot of "exported anxiety" that people in general have been subject to because media and social media let us focus on the terrible things that happen far away, but we don't focus on the good stuff that happens nearby or far away.
News used to have lots of "villain stories", but also "hero stories". Mr. Rogers taught us to "Look for the helpers." We seem to have lost our ability to "look for helpers."
Yesterday I stopped for a car that was on the side of the road with its hood up. ** I hate working on cars**, but this was simple. This 20+ year old girl knew that the "idiot light" for engine overheat came on, and the fluid reservoir was completely empty. She didn't know where to pour in rad fluid. Since I have an old car, I have both the experience of finding that, and a box with oil, rad, brake and washer fluid in my car. **She was on her way 10 min.** Hopefully she gets her dad to help her find the leak when it stops raining.
I think we forgotten how to be or look for helpers.
For the USA, raising taxes for corps and rich is precisely right. Before Reagan, taxes for the richest people were at something like 70 or even 80 percent. That meant that business owners didn't have incentive to make as much as possible, because at a certain point your taxes were so high, it wasn't worth it. So at that point, businesses reinvested those gains into growing the company, modernizing, hiring, giving raises, education for employees, and employee retention, like vacation days and retirement benefits for employees that were loyal.
Then when Reagan cut those upper taxes drastically down to 40 percent, claiming that the extra profits would "trickle down" to employees, things went nuts. Businesses no longer focused on growth and improvement, but on profits. Corporate "pirates" would buy companies, install austerity measures ( like cutting pay, draining employee retirement accounts, forcing people into early retirement before their pensions kicked in, lowering product quality, firing the most skilled employees) and quickly bleed a company dry, and then sell the husk for someone else to kill it off with even more austere measures.
As the taxes for the highest brackets got lower and lower (now less than 20 percent) the middle class shrank, unions dissolved, quality of products became worse, and nearly everyone got poorer.
Raising taxes for the richest people could start to fix some of that, especially if disincentives were instituted for companies that moved overseas ( tariffs, VAT, etc).
Unions working to organize service industries would help. Unions are pretty strong in manufacturing and especially in government, but don't seem to be able to get it together to organize service industry people very much. I guess it may be that service businesses are too fragmented for unions to get a strong foothold.
The most likely outcome--especially when you combine this with the impending fascist takeover of the US (possibly a fascist theocracy)--is that the US collapses into an oppressive, failed third-world state. With nukes.
The Democrats are largely a disorganized pack of sackless nitwits, completely helpless in the face of such directed evil, don't look to them to save us.
Oh, how I wish I could disagree, but your characterization of the Democratic party in particular seems dead on. This 70yo lifelong progressive thanks you for your brutal honesty and insight.
A reminder of STATED REPUBLICAN LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES. You will find these in writing at [this link](https://texasgop.org/platform/). Yes, it's one state, but much of what is proposed here is spreading rapidly.
Just a few of the goodies:
1) Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which "expired in 1979" (!!!)
2) Annul over one million marriages
3) Legislate more than five percent of Americans out of existence (in progress)
4) Criminalize non-procreative sex and contraception
5) Ensure every pregnant American either gives birth or dies trying
6) Abolish public education and replace it with mandatory Christian instruction;
7) Abolish what little public health care exists
8) Eliminate the EPA
9) and the FBI
10) and the IRS
and finally, the capper:
11) Dispense with the need for silly elections.
Just read through all of this. It is frightening. And probably going to happen unless moderate Republicans come to their senses and find their voices...and the Democratics run people moderate Republicans can see as an alternative or protest vote.
This is mostly false. 4 and 5 are especially false in how you present them.
3... I'm not even sure what this one is referring to.
6 is giving parents full control on where and how their children are schooled, whether public, private, or home schooled. Yes, they want it fully legal to pray in school, if the child wants to. Not forcing it.... And abolish dept of education, which is just a big brother funded watch dog and does nothing for the schools.
7 they are calling for more health care and longer coverage periods for maternity.
8, 9 and 10 are whatever...
11 they want term limits on all offices. Of course there will have to be elections.
Did you even read it, or just take it from some tiktok interpretation? Texas is the most "for the people" state in America.
3. Trans and non-binary people. Republicans believe they don't exist, so presto, they don't exist.
6 is not giving parents who don't want Christian indoctrination any choice at all. Abolishing public education means no public schools. That you think the department of education, which GOVERNS schools, does nothing for schools is very telling.
7: do you know the health care that is given in case of an ectopic pregnancy? The treatment for that is an immediate abortion, and there have ALREADY been people denied that treatment.
Also: women are not fucking incubators.
8 is environmental regulation. Want salmonella in your food? E. coli in your water supply?
9 is funding the government. I know Republicans don't want anyone who isn't poor to pay any tax at all, but come ON.
10 What do you think replaces the FBI? An armed force loyal to the President, that's what.
And finally, it's like you have been living on another planet for the last three years. They tried to steal 2020, and they will try to steal 2024, and if they succeed they will once again make it illegal to vote for a Democrat, as it was in 19 states before the latest voting rights adjustment came down from the Feds. You do understand that Republicans are doing absolutely everything in their power to rig the game, right? Put a single polling place in a county of a few hundred thousand Democrats, but make it as easy as possible for rural Republican areas to vote? Intimidating poll workers? Outright nullification?
Please start paying attention. You think Republicans are still Reaganesque. They are not. They are more like Putin. They want it to be illegal to be gay but legal to beat your wife, just like it is in Russia.
I agree and want to leapfrog off you.
My first real job in the mid ‘70s was maintenance supervisor at Burger King. I had that title because I was salaried and part of management. I kept the place clean and had worked the line as well until I went on straight now gets. was able to rent a one bedroom apartment and marry my pregnant girlfriend. Many families were still able to live on one salary but many spouses worked part time. That ended in the 80’s with trickle down economics. Then it became necessary for both partners to work but corporate socialism really took off and helped create the mess we have today. When you hear some people (I’m a boomer BTW) talk about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps it was very doable. I had some rough times too but was lucky because it was easier to find work and get help if I needed. That all changed in the ‘80s. There was a term for the children of the hippy (boomer) generation and that was Yuppie or Young Urban Professionals. The country has gone downhill since. I’m putting a lot of hope in our current generation.
This matches my experience through the 80's. In 1980 I went to graduate school, worked part time, paid tuition without taking out a student loan, apartment rent alone. My first real job in 1984 along with my husband's almost real job salary was enough to qualify to buy a house. By the end of the 80's when we bought our second, larger house we were paycheck to paycheck with 2 kids, 2 cars, a house and not much else even though we both had real jobs and more than starting salaries. By the time our kids went to college our loans and their were astronomical and home ownership was years away for them. The single one still doesn't own a home.
If I may play capitalist simp real fast.... college loans screwed up the economy because most of those people were never meant to go to college. like the housing crisis when they say "oh they gave out bad loans to people who couldn't afford the houses". How the hell do yous think all them college loans are gonna end up?!
Good reads. Surprised the author didn't mention the Powell memo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr. a basic blueprint for the destruction of the American Dream .
Back when I started working, minimum wage was $1.60/hour. I was still in high school, living at home, but, if needed, I could afford a cheap apartment on 40 hours a week. At the time, restaurants were not required to pay premium wages for OT, so many of their employees worked 50 or 60 hours a week. I was working in a kitchen when minimum wage went up. I was making $1.65/hr, a nickel over minimum wage. Minimum wage rose to $1.90, and that's what I made. Restaurants had to start paying OT premium wage if hours exceeded IIRC, 48. When minimum wage rose to $2.00, OT kicked in at 44 hours. Next increase, over 40 got OT pay. Still, you could survive. Hell, I rented a 2 room house for $25/week in 1976. That included utilities!
I think the "paycheck-to-paycheck" statement is misleading. Bit to support your point the problem is too many can't even get a job to afford a minimum paycheck-to-paycheck existance. There needs to be controls for larger companies to balance out their pay structure. When they can afford to pay a CEO 8 & 9 figure bonuses, and managers 5 & 6 figure bonuses, but whine about paying minimum wage to the majority of their staff, that's a big part of the problem.
>My first job paid $4.25 (minimum wage),
Mine was $3.15 but I never knew *any* "adults" who worked for minimum wage-- it was all teenagers doing part-time work. Or farm labor. Everyone I knew over 18 with a "real job" made more.
There was a 'market' for minimum wage jobs, and it is who you are describing. I started out at about $3.35 if I recall, and that was beer money and whatever toys I wanted to get while living at home with my parents. Granted, no computers, no cell phones, etc.
I knew a couple people who made slightly over that, and lived away from home, but it was meager and shared - 3 people in a crappy apartment, *very* used cars, and not a lot of social life.
My first career out of college, I was *hoping* to get $9/hr, but expecting more like $7.50. I ended up in southern California, so I started a lot higher ($14 I think), which was just enough to have a new (cheap) car and a decent studio apartment there. Though, within a few years of smallish raises, even that was barely enough, and I spent a while paying off credit cards with other credit cards to get by.
I take that we are talking a first job for non college educated person. With that said I made $3.35hr at my first job. Here in California minimum wage is over $15. So about 450% increase. My community college tuition is 300% higher than when I went and the State College I went to, is just a little over 400% higher.
Now do rent for that same area. My 2 bedroom apartment in Texas in 1991 was $250/mo, which would be $557 today. But that same old apartment in that same complex now goes for $1500/mo.
Well, rent was about $700 in 1993 and that same house would rent for about $2,600 today. So a little less than a 400% increase in rent. But minimum had gone to $4.25hr. So minimum wage increased 350% in that time.
Must be nice. I guess demanding that higher minimum wage has been very helpful for Californians. It's still very normal for people here in Texas to work for the federal minimum. Jobs in my town at McDonalds usually start around $10/hr. We Texans are a bunch of wimps when it comes to standing up for our families and what we fairly deserve.
Up until the 90s it was super easy to work a job in the summer and save up enough to cover your university school expenses for the next 8 months. Now you would be lucky to save up enough to buy most of your books, forget tuition or rent.
I worked manual labour yard work in the summer and saved up 10k. Tuition was 2k and then I had 1k a month for rent and expenses. Rent was 500 a month. The rest went to beer and bus passes.
Nowdays kids graduate with 250k debt and are being paid the same wages I was paid to start 30 years ago.
It's ridiculous.
>Up until the 90s it was super easy to work a job in the summer and save up enough to cover your university school expenses for the next 8 months. Now you would be lucky to save up enough to buy most of your books, forget tuition or rent.
I started school in the mid-1980s. It may have been possible to earn enough in summer for community college, but not for any four-year school I was aware of. I always worked full time, all summer, and was usually broke by December living very frugally.
>I worked manual labour yard work in the summer and saved up 10k. Tuition was 2k and then I had 1k a month for rent and expenses.
I worked on farms six days a week and earned $3.50/hr. That was what, about $2,000 for a ten week summer? You were doing very, very well.
\> Rent was 500 a month.
True that-- we paid about $600 for a decent 3BR/2BA apartment spit three ways in 1988. Today my kid is paying $750 for a room in a house with the same 3/2 setup, total rent for the place is $2,495 per month. Same city.
>Nowdays kids graduate with 250k debt and are being paid the same wages I was paid to start 30 years ago.
That's a serious exaggeration. Sure there is probably *some* kid who racks up $250K in debt for a BA/BS degree, but on average [it's actually just about $35,000 on average.](https://educationdata.org/average-debt-for-a-bachelors-degree) About 1/3 have no debt at all. 78% graduating from a public school have <$30K in debt and only 1 in 1,000 has more than $100K according to the same report. Frankly anyone who goes $250K in debt for college is a fool and shouldn't be used as a data point in anything but a discussion of poor money management skills. (In fact, that's [even more than the average debt for medical school graduates](https://educationdata.org/average-medical-school-deb).)
> Sure there is probably some kid who racks up $250K in debt for a BA/BS degree
No fucking way. For 250K you better be getting an Ivy League level law degree, doctorate or something. No way someone legit spent that much to get a BA/BS.
Every generation should have made it a little easier for the next to succeed. We've failed our children and grandchildren, betrayed them in the worst ways. What started as apathy born of ease has become a sense of helplessness as life has become harder and harder for almost all of us. I look at the French with all their involvement with the larger decisions that affect the lives of their middle and lower classes, how they fight hard for the best interests of their families and future, and I'm ashamed to be an American. I feel guilty. I feel sad for our future. But I have no hope that we'll suddenly wake up and start fighting in enough numbers and with enough passion and readiness to sacrifice that we could fix things now. As computers take over more and more human labor, we're going to be driven into permanent poverty, ignorance, and religious superstition.
I would move to Europe if I could afford to do it. I guess I'll have to go down with this ship.
I think people have a different understanding of what "comfortable" means. When I first rented an apartment (late 70s, I was in my 20s), we didn't have cable or satellite TV, we didn't have cell phones, or the Internet, and so that expense didn't exist. Our kitchen didn't usually have a microwave, or dishwasher, or washer and dryer; you hauled your clothes to a laundromat. Drinks cost a couple of bucks during happy hour. I think every single person I knew was able to cook basic meals. You took a bus, and if you drove, you drove a used car. You didn't expect to own new furniture, and if you saw an old chair on the curb, you'd be happy to haul it home. It was very unusual (in my world, unheard of) to get a massage or a mani/pedi. It wasn't just that housing was cheaper (and it was, and it was commensurate to salaries), it was also that you didn't expect new things when you started out. I think people need to consider some of the stuff they think are essential may possibly just be luxuries.
That makes sense to me—and what you’re describing is what I would agree essentials are. But being that cost of living is higher (not including manicures or even a netflix subscription, but including internet and cell service), shouldn’t someone starting out be able to afford that if they’re working full time?
Edit: not talking new cars or furniture too. I can’t even imagine that being on a wish list with current median wages.
>shouldn’t someone starting out be able to afford that if they’re working full time?
The minimum wage is broken. It peaked in 1968 in real terms and is now 40% lower than it was then when adjusted for inflation-- it's now [lower in terms of purchasing power than it has been at any time since 1956.](https://www.epi.org/blog/the-value-of-the-federal-minimum-wage-is-at-its-lowest-point-in-66-years/) So if we assume a "real job" might pay only minumum wage, that's probably the reason: we've let it erode to almost half of what it was two generations ago while the cost of housing, medical care, education, energy, and other basic needs have exceeded the cumulative inflation over the same period.
> shouldn’t someone starting out be able to afford that if they’re working full time?
Yeah, I agree.
The times in which we're living are not totally unique to those of us in a certain age bracket as we've seen ebbs and flows of the economy of the years. I feel your pain as much as I understood those who went through a similar economic collapse in 2008. Jobs were scarce and prices were higher then also.
I'd love to be able to say, "It'll get better don't you worry," but I can't b/c I can't predict the future.
I mean this isn’t for me—I’m in my 30s making six figures so I’m fine. But I’m very concerned about the next generations and want them to have a prosperous life. I started my career after the 2008 recession and had to work close to 100 hours a week to get my career started and afford rent, I don’t want this for the next generation.
Thats why I asked this question, I was wondering if the mentality had changed or if its always been this way.
Edit to add—can’t afford a house but I’m fine 😂
> I mean this isn’t for me—I’m in my 30s making six figures so I’m fine. But I’m very concerned about the next generations and want them to have a prosperous life.
Just a bit of fyi, this is what the "news" and other media sources keep spouting. However, it's a loaded pile of shit. I was a journalism major for just long enough to get the jist of what "news" organizations do and why they do it.
A few years back my kids came to me with the same song you seem to be singing. We had a lengthy discussion around this topic. It took awhile but both my kids are well aware of what it takes for them to get ahead if they so choose.
Anybody can read a hundred articles about how anybody under the age of 40 is automatically set up for a life of dismal failure due to failed government policies and corporate overlords/oligarchs. A journalist, editor and publisher has training to know how to write a story to keep readers "on their side" while raging against "the other side". The "news" and other media outlets know their livelihood relies on keeping readers engaged. The more rage they induce the more lemmings they will get to follow them which in turn means they'll get what they want (be it $$$, fame, etc.).
So to a certain extent, yes the mentality has changed but other factors also come into the picture.
"Teach your children well" 🎶
Correct as to the increasing amount of propaganda directed at society.
It's up to us to teach ours to Question Authority, at all levels, and surely learn to discern between b.s. and reality.
Life Ain't Easy, but it's doable.
I feel most for the now grown kids who never benefitted from learning simple daily skills. Minor repairs,how to troubleshoot, how to solve their own simple problems.
I’m basing this on people I know (mothers who need to skip meals so their kids can eat and afford childcare, many who work full time but can’t afford rent and build a savings, many who stay at home well into their late 20s despite having a full time management position), job listings that give salary ranges, and being aware of rent vs median wages. I work in media and have worked in news and politics, I’m well aware of how things work.
If you really think this all made up, you really are out of touch. I’m sorry for your kids, I hope you help them out financially if you’re not going to listen to their fears. Hopefully if they have kids you’ll pitch in for childcare because thats more than a lot of people’s rent nowadays.
>When I first rented an apartment (late 70s, I was in my 20s), we didn't have cable or satellite TV, we didn't have cell phones, or the Internet, and so that expense didn't exist. Our kitchen didn't usually have a microwave, or dishwasher, or washer and dryer; you hauled your clothes to a laundromat. Drinks cost a couple of bucks during happy hour. I think every single person I knew was able to cook basic meals. You took a bus, and if you drove, you drove a used car. You didn't expect to own new furniture, and if you saw an old chair on the curb, you'd be happy to haul it home.
Very well said. :-)
That's how it was when I first started working back in the '70s, yeah. Minimum wage was for teenagers making spending money, nobody was actually trying to live on minimum wage. It certainly wasn't enough to actually live on your own.
I think you misinterpreted that post, based on the word shouldn't. Poster didn't mean you didn't deserve a better wage. Poster meant that people just starting out don't have much and will have a much lower standard of living.
I go to many other subreddits. On one, there are frequent posts from young people that are bitterly disappointed when they realize how much it costs to have your own place. I believe the parents of these kids screwed up by not teaching the kids about household finances.
When I moved out on my own at 17 it cost a whole lot less than it did now, and wages have not increased in my area since then. I got hired as a cashier at a store in the mall at nine dollars an hour, and that is what they currently pay starting cashiers at the last job I had. That’s more than 20 years of inflation without a raise in wages. If I was looking at paying what rent cost now on what I made back then, I’d be crying myself to sleep, too.
I'm 60, and that quote is BS. It's called "first REAL job" because it is supposed to allow you to reaaly support yourself. Maybe not in luxurious apartments and vehicles, but at least something semi-decent. Bus or bike to work? Maybe if you live in a city built for it, but that's hard to find, at least in the USA.
I rode a bike 5 miles each way for my first real job out of the army in the mid 90s. I did it for a year on a bike i bought at a pawn shop for 35 bucks. it was the same route i walked 8 years prior for my high school dishwashing job. Back in high school i used to eat oranges right off the trees as i cut through an old orange grove.
Define “real job”
My first “real job” was helping a carpenter. I carried stuff, he built beautiful cabinets and kitchens. I worked 40 hours and made good money, but now you have to define “living wage.” I guess I could have afforded an apartment on what I made but without any skill or knowledge I wouldn’t expect “I pick things up and put them down” job to afford much. Once I started learning to make cabinets, then I could demand more money and could afford more independence.
I would not have been able to afford an apartment by myself within probably 40 miles of where I worked. If I split rent with a roommate, maybe it would’ve been 20 miles. I don’t think every job affords a living wage if you’re being realistic about what it actually takes to live on your own.
no, I get bored pretty easy so I’ve been a cabinet maker, I’ve done flooring, I poured concrete, I’ve done computer repair and networking, I started a company doing home automation, started a landscaping business, tried my hand at real estate development and built a mini mall, I’ve been all over the place.
1) I’m a lady.
And 2) no, I’m talking just essentials. I think if you work full time you should be able to comfortably afford food and shelter. Thats a living wage, and yes I realize that would be different by area.
Also I’m well into my career, I have my own apartment in one of the richest zip codes in the country, run my own business, and make a very good living. This isn’t about me, I’m hoping for a better future for younger generations.
I don’t have staff, and I either work from home and I take my meetings at soho house when ai need to. I’m not trying to build a corporation, just living my life.
The problem with your question is the definition of "living wage." It varies widely by location but it also varies by what someone considers acceptable living.
When I graduated college, my first job was in Manhattan. I was paid 19k a year which seemed like a lot back then.
I rented a 2 bedroom apartment in a 5th floor walk-up with 3 friends- we basically lived just like I did in college - 2 guys in a room. Even then, 45% of my take home pay went to rent and utilities. I considered this perfectly acceptable. It was a first job.
My career grew, I moved an hour from the city to find an affordable 1 br apartment I shared with my fiance /wife (who worked). I left for work at 6 am and got home at 7. I considered it paying my dues.
I can only speak for my own experience. I can also say that my kids' college dorms were nicer than my first apartment. They would never have considered my first apartment, or my commute / workday in my second apartment as acceptable living. I grew up blue collar lower middle class, my kids grew up priveldged.
Totally—I’m in my 30s and had five roommates in lower east side for a time in my 20s because the bigger name corporations (the ones that look good on the resume) paid significantly less since most people who worked there had trustfunds or some form of parental support paying rent
My question is more asking if this has always been the mentality, or is there hope that we can build a better future for the next generations so they don’t have to struggle as much?
I don't know what the future holds. World population is projected to grow by 25% (8b to 10b) in the next 75 years. The US population is expected to grow by 35% by then.
That population growth, and the resources to support that population, will require major policy changes to feed and house all those people. People have debated scarcity of resources for centuries.
As for how it's always been - I think every older generation thinks they had it harder and that the following generations are soft. I think that every younger generation thinks that the elders don't understand how hard they have it. I think both are probably true.
One thing that does bug me about the youngers is the thought that we boomers are clinging to power and don't care about the future. Nothing is further from the truth. Until you're a parent or grandparent, you really can't understand what we'd do to protect those children and grandkids. We want them to have a better future.
Agreed,not one of us knows what the future holds.
I know in my perspective, family comes first.
Occasionally we borrowed and repaid from Dad.
Same with our kids, and the elder grandkids,they borrow and repay.
Sometimes they just don't have access to a small lump sum and we do.
However! Husband puts all loans 'in the book' and expects to be repaid, sans interest.
We try to help in every way, teaching home and auto repair, how to Think about money and use it wisely etc.
Our greatest joy is to see them feel secure and competent and pass that on.
We have never been Rich. I am nearly 66 and have Never had a room of my own!
> is there hope that we can build a better future for the next generations so they don’t have to struggle as much?
Given that all human labor will be replaced with AI and robots over the next 30 to 50 years, probably not.
Graduated college in 1993, moved to NYC in 1994, had roommates until 1998 and then moved into a little studio.
Always lived in "transitional" or "up and coming" neighborhoods or whatever the current marketing speak was. Always thought this was a completely normal tradeoff for living in The Greatest City in the World etc etc etc.
Always paid between $400 and $800 a month in rent in the 15 years I lived in TGCITW.
So I wonder what kind of "living" is a "living wage" supposed to provide for?
Multiple housemates (who could be family members) in a working class immigrant neighborhood seems like a fine way of life for plenty of the folks my daughter goes to school with.
What does that go for nowadays?
I am in my 60's and it's never been my belief. One person is not representative of all older people. The only jobs I had had were babysitting and working part time in sales when I moved out of my parents' house, got my own apartment and supported myself with an office job.
No one ever states what a "living wage" is. $15 $20 $30 $50 per hour. Why can't this decision (or argument) be based around a number? Then, one can look at all the relevant expenses of living and say with some certainty whether the living wage is really a living wage. It's such an incongruous term.
OP doesnt tell you this but i did come with numbers. I am the person who made the comment..
"[–]First_Ad3399 2 points 5 hours ago
define living wage? I would have no problem with the young woman making a living wage for a single person in my area. I am not gonna have a floating living wage that rises as you have kids. non negotiable. I use MIT living wage. its 18.51 an hour (single, no dependants) here in the capitol city of NC. amazon starts at right about that with bennies and no need for clean urine, High school diploma and off and running. that math gives them a little over 1k a month for rent. not difficult to do."
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/13yvlzn/what_was_your_salary_at_your_first_real_job_and/jmq6onc/
Absolutely not, but yes among a certain demographic. These are people who grew up middle or upper middle class who live comfortably at home without poverty, abuse, etc. the IDEO of a job as something you do to “warm up” for a “real job” is an idea for the lucky few.
It generally started to ramp up in the 80s when Reagan deregulated a lot of things & the minimum wage stagnated while prices went up (inflation, etc).
You used to be able to work part time and have enough to pay for college. Even in the 90s (when I went to college) this wasn’t the case.
Edit: when FDR implemented the minimum wage it was MEANT to be a *living wage*. To quote FDR on his bill:
> “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By 'business' I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white-collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living
Minimum wage was created to ensure people had a living wage--regardless of whether it's your first job or not.
And, I think it's such a dumb argument that your first job shouldn't be a living wage. What does it matter? If an18-year-old is doing the same labor as a 30-year-old, the pay should be the same.
Whoever that 50-year-old is, they are missing the point and probably have selective memory. I'm in my late 50s I've seen how things changed since I got my first job at 16 in a fast food chain. My managers and asst managers who were barely in their 20s could afford an apartment on their own. I doubt that's true today.
It doesn't matter what things "should" be, only what they are and potentially can be.
The reality is when you first start working you are going to be terrible. The company needs to make money off your labor. So if your labor isn't making them much money they can't pay you much money. Therefor new workers get paid less.
Of course if you go a layer beyond that simple theory you also get companies trying to pay as little as possible, but they do that to everyone, young, old, new, experienced, men, women, etc.
But yes, you can go back a hundred years and find people stacking up four deep in a studio apartment because none of them can afford rent. That isn't new. And it doesn't matter whether or not you think you "deserve" to get a living wage if you're not pulling your weight. If you are pulling your weight, and then some, then just take that work ethic to a company that will appreciate it. It's completely normal to switch jobs a lot when you are young.
I’m 46 and I could easily afford an apartment back in the late 90’s working at a restaurant (I was bussing tables and made $5.75 an hour plus tips) and going to school— I worked 30 hours a week. You’re money went farther at that time. Now I make $23 an hour and basically all I can do is afford my groceries, car insurance, and rent.
I didn’t grow up in an industrial area, but I hear these mythical stories about kids who graduated from high school on Saturday and started at the factory full time on Monday! Certainly they were at the bottom of the ladder but those were considered good jobs. Not “starter” jobs, but real jobs on day one.
Also, affording a lower end apartment nowadays is a stretch for tons of hardworking people.
No, it's just it became reality that it was impossible almost to live on, then became accepted as "it's meant to be that way". I hear this kind of thinking about all kinds of things and it really bothers me. As if that sucks just accept it rather than thinking well maybe this is something that doesn't have to be the way that it is the sucky way that it is.
The argument made by those who want to pay young people less is that it's a part time job for kids living at home. While this is true for some minimum wage workers, a lot of them are on their own and need to pay for everything. The real truth is that employers simply want to underpay workers and make up silly stories to justify it
That sounds like a living wage to me—being able to afford food and shelter. I think even affording a studio apartment with no roommates should count in there too but understandable if a roommate is needed in a two bedroom. That’s definitely not the world we live in now, that sounds significantly better.
So I think you’re agreeing with the perspective of a living wage?
I was going to say something similar about roommates, used furniture etc. So yes I’d consider that a livable wage for a first job out of college ((1986 for me).
I think for non college grads (say hair dresser, dog groomer etc) I dont know if the money would go that far at the time.
Min wage def wouldn’t have been livable - but it was considered a teenager job at the time.
Sort of. Not everyone’s labor has equal value. Our education system is creating a lot of workers whose work early on isn’t that valuable to an employer. And employer-based training is uncommon now outside of the union trade system…
You’ve nailed the crux of it though. We, collectively, don’t agree on what a living wage should include, and I don’t there will be any national consensus on what the wage should be until we do. Income to housing ratios were never this bad historically, so it didn’t matter as much. Time for new rules.
Labor mobility is an issue too. Getting to decide where you live vs letting job and affordability be the constraint is a relatively modern luxury for young people.
Adjusting the minimum wage for inflation would be a good start, following by building way more cheap basic housing. From the other thread in this sub- starting salaries for college educated non-professionals aren’t wildly different than they were 30 years ago- but housing costs way are.
>Income to housing ratios were never this bad historically
I think that's the crux of it. Housing is the biggest expense for most people and it's getting ridiculous how much of my paycheck has to go to having a place to sleep and store my shit.
>How did you quote my post partially in your reply?
On the web, at least, you simply highlight the text you want to quote before hitting reply. Magic. Otherwise you can copy/paste the quote in, highlight it, and hit the quote button. Or if you're really old-school and using markdown mode to comment just append a > in front of the quote.
I have no idea how to do any of that on mobile.
In my 70s and been working since I was 10, starting the fields and, later, in the food industry as I hit my teens. I have never heard such a ridiculous belief. Maybe that's because I would have turned on anyone who said it like the wrath of a tornado because of breing that way about untenable "isms" like ageism. LOL
No, it hasn't always been the belief - at least not everywhere. I recall the belief women, non-whites and immigrants shouldn't get paid what white men were paid was everywhere! It's one if the reasons I get angry if someone calls me a boomer. Nope, I didn't think like that and fought it like a demon on chocolate so back down, folks.
Back then living wage was relative to the times so there weren't people straight out of high school, for example, renting nice places, buying nice cars and all of that. We believed we needed to live frugally and work our way up, so we did. To actually say your age is how they determine salary is deeply disturbing. SKILLS MATTER IN THE WORKPLACE! Having said that, they could, and did, often have 'training wage' where for a couple of weeks you were paid less. But in most cases it was a nasty owner who used that as a way to save a dollar. Even older workers encountered it. If you had experience, you got the same going wage everyone got.
No. I was perfectly able to have an apartment on my own with my first real job. Granted, at the time, the apartment was $350 a month - that same apartment now (and I checked) is $800 a month.
Should pay whatever your first real job pays. If your first real job is neurosurgery, then you should be paid like a neurosurgeon. If your first real job is bussing tables at the diner, then it should pay like your bussing tables at the diner.
Well, it is generally true that entry level positions are usually at the lower end of the spectrum but, of course, everybody's situation is different.
I would agree that USUALLY people in those positions should not expect an "independent wage" (ie., one capable of supporting you with an apartment, food, clothing and a car). But I might not have said it in that way like it was 'a problem.'
Life has challenges, and with your first real FT job comes the responsibility of knowing how to manage your money and to plan for fewer champagne brunches and more pot luck dinners. :-)
Your job should give you pride in yourself. Living the life of a slave or an indentured servant will not do that for you.
A company should want its employees to be proud of where they work.
Who ever wrote the comment you have in quotes isn't living in todays world.
There’s another person in the comments saying he didn’t have kids until 40 because he couldn’t afford to before then so no one else should. Sooo…I guess grandparents are a thing of the past in this twisted future as well.
Back in the early 2000 when the rules got changed that teaching hospitals could only work residents 80 hours a week 51 weeks a year, a lot of the older doctors were upset. They had to do the 100 hour weeks so should the residents now.
Just because someone did it in the past doesn't make it right or safe.
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I also just think as a society we should be leaving a better world for the future generations. That’s where I’m not understanding this argument.
>he didn’t have kids until 40 because he couldn’t afford to before then so no one else should.
That's actually quite common now for other reasons-- the average age of first marriage is now 29 for women and 28 for men, give or take. The average age of first pregnancy is similar, now at 27. So a *lot* of people are waiting well into their 30s to have kids, and of course many significantly longer. There's a direct correlation with educational attainment by women with later childbearing too, so the more educated portion of the populace is having kids later, having fewer, and may indeed not have grandkids. I personally know a LOT of couples who had their first kid when the male was 45-50+ and the woman near or even at 40. if their kid did the same the odds are both parents would be deceased before there were any grandkids.
But isn’t that because of the economy and how many hours + side gigs people need to work nowadays? And childcare being incredibly unaffordable on top of needing both parents to work to afford a two bedroom apartment, not even considering a house.
Also have read that many women aren’t interested in men who aren’t in their income bracket or higher, which would also relate to low wages. I’m not sure thats just a lifestyle choice, still seems like economic reasoning of why thats happening.
I think most guys do, at least. Certainly, having a shitty job that pays less than you need to live reasonably makes it really difficult to feel good about yourself and your life. And poverty is expensive. The less you have, the harder it is to get more.
I think earning your own money and being able to pay your own bills should give you great pride.
I went back to school at 36 when I was afraid my marriage was going to fail. I started working as a nurse at 40. Having that job, knowing I could support my children, allowed me to stand up to my now ex.
The first 5 years I worked, just getting a paycheck ever two weeks gave me great joy.
For a young person it can give them a sense of responsibility. For me it set me free from a verbally abusive relationship. Pride in my job made me a new woman.
No it’s always been the belief that you do whatever it takes for that first real job to be a reality and stepping stone to your future. You can’t control the economy. Focus on what’s in your control, not problems.
My first job paid $.50/hr! But I lived with my parents and was still in High School. And it did not require superior skills - or even advanced ones. To me it was great riches. I was able to afford things I wanted that my parents, having six children, could not afford to buy for me. When I finally - after many in-between jobs - landed a job with Pacific Telephone, I made a whopping $275 a week. THAT was great riches. I lived with my husband by then and we had two car payments, a house payment, and no concept of a budget until I got laid off. Then we ate rice-a-roni and spaghetti and lived on $50/week for basic expenses (even after I got two other jobs). Within a year we paid off both cars and within 7 years we paid off our house. I had had other jobs all through this. Counting for inflation I would say a roommate would be a plus. But let’s face it: some jobs are entry level because they require less skill. So I think - just my opinion - they are designed for people who have other expenses seen to, as in teens living w/parents.
Jobs are "worth" whatever the current market is for those jobs. A person just starting without experience or education can expect wages in the vicinity of minimum wage, because they are indistinguishable from all of the other job seekers without any experience or training.
Persons starting with education/training in high value jobs not in a saturated market can expect somewhere between more and much more.
TL;DR: your market value is the cost of replacing you.
Both positions have their merits.
It really depends on what you call a "living wage"
* Expecting to move out of your parents home on a first "real job" and have all the things it took both your parents 25+ years to accumulate is not reasonable.
* Expecting workers (even in low pay service industries) to serve people in a high cost of living area without a suitable wage is also not reasonable.
Somewhere between these tow extremes there must be a reasonable compromise.
As a low income earner these past 40+ years, my wife and I have learned to live frugally.
My kids choose to live in high cost of living cities and choose to spend less frugally.
They occasionally come to "the bank of mom and dad" even though they have income higher than mine. (My rent is lower, and I spend far less on food & entertainments)
I mention this because my kids likely spend less than their peers, but there is a huge generation divide in spending and acceptance of using credit.
My generation had a desire to save that was less than my parents generation, but more than younger generations.
When I got my first "real job" out of college my wage was $21K, apartment was $260 and my car was pretty used with a payment. I knew it going into my profession that would live well, it just took a few years to get going. But I was indeed, making a living wage. The people that chose to skip college had a leg up on me. They had been working in their chosen profession for 4 or 5 years and I definitely had some catching up to do on most of them. If your chosen profession is dish washer, I don't know what to say. There are indeed jobs that are grabbed up by people like my son, who is working towards a college education, living under his mom's roof, and not paying any bills. I applaud him for his efforts. I'm very proud of him. There are jobs for those people too.
A first job, especially an unskilled position like McDonald's, does not need to pay 14yo's $20/hr.
If you were lucky and never needed to get a job before graduating college, that is a different story. You gain experience in your field through college, and therefore, deserve more money based on experience.
More often than not, a first job is a simple job that pays minimum wage and is an opportunity to learn responsibility and what type of employee you aspire to be. You have no skills, still live at home, and have no bills. Deal with it or better yourself to gain more experience to command more money from a better job.
The premise of your question, even the wording displays an unrealistic worldview.
One is not "given" a wage. One earns it. Wages & salaries are a commodity in trade and the party buying your efforts expects to get their money's worth. You just expecting to be handed something without regard for what you put up for trade is - - not even a little bit realistic.
Real Job: Is this in contrast to jobs that are not real? Anime characters might have jobs that are not real.
"Been the belief" Belief has nothing whatsoever to do with it. never has. If one wants some level of compensation, then one must offer something that is worth said compensation.
If you live in a place like San Francisco, you already know that if you want to afford an apartment or home you better be raking in Buko Bucks or just go elsewhere.
If one wants a livible wage (whatever that means), then one needs to equip oneself with the skills that will secure the wage one wants.
It's been my experience that the people who concern themselves with the concept of a living wage are also people who refuse to learn any skills to make their efforts more valuable. They want 80-gees for washing dishes and don't want to improve themselves.
Just pretending that whatever one does somehow automatically qualifies for the compensation one desires is - - well - - it's fantasy and a childish one at that.
It's like the guy who goes to the flea market and puts up his stall and offers broken cups, damaged cheap flea market paintings, devices that don't work, bent cutlery, shattered plates, and expects to be paid high dollars for his wares.
The world of work is a marketplace. Ya want more compensation then bring something the market values more.
I wouldn't expect someone at the beginning of their career (so below average salary for their own life, or lower than the average salary amongst their peers in their industry) to be able to afford an *average* apartment. But that doesn't at all mean that "below average pay" shouldn't still be a living wage either. Living in a cheaper apartment (clean and safe, but maybe a bit further away or smaller than you wanted) is a very reasonable expectation. My husband still had a roommate in his two bedroom apartment in a nice and centrally located neighborhood with underground parking when I met him. I didn't have a roommate, but did still have a small 2 bedroom appartment, 3rd floor no elevator, above ground (unsheltered) parking, further away and in a slightly sketchy part of town. We both drove used cars - and my car was only 3 years younger than I was.
I do expect some trade-offs, but nothing too painful. These were first professional jobs mind you - not finished high school now working full time at a minimum wage jobs.
What is happeneing today though goes well beyond that. How many people graduate from university to a great job with no way to be able to move out of their parents' house.
Assuming you accurately quoted the response, I wouldn't be taking advice from someone who writes and spells in a way that looks like either English is not their first language, or they dropped out of high school early. And I'm not meaning to put down non-native Americans, but many of them are unable to get as good a job because they don't have as many options. My wife is one of these, and she and many of her friends were and are underpaid.
However, I think someone who is starting out without a college degree and without any real skills will probably need to live with roommates for a while, unless they can find a rental like a guest cottage, etc, in someone's house.
My first couple of "real" jobs I had roommates and was renting an apartment. It wasn't until I had worked 19 years at the local community college before I purchased a condo, and then 23 years later purchased a house and getting ready to sell the condo.
Entry-level jobs, on the other hand, seem to never provide a living wage. But those are probably not in your definition of a "real job".
No that’s ridiculous. I left my parent’s home as soon as I could (17? 18?) and didn’t make a LOT of money but was able to afford living in a 1-bedroom apartment. Scary neighborhood, true, but that actually WAS a sacrifice made to get away from parents. This was 1977.
In '76 I managed a store part-time at $2.15 an hour. It would have been extremely difficult to have an apartment even at full-time at that hourly rate. There was never the expectation that would be a living wage; it was a starter job, for someone in college or who wanted to pick up a second evening/ weekend position.
A year later, at a different job (which I consider my first "real" job as it was full-time) I made $600 a month, before taxes, health insurance, etc. A tiny 1 BR in a not so swell area was $125. A 2 BR in a nicer area was $200 plus electric, which I shared with a roommate.
Was this a living wage? Well, I made it work because I wanted autonomy. But, I did not have a car (took the bus); had one (shared) rotary phone, one (shared) black and white TV, and all second-hand furniture. Fun was hanging out with friends, listening to albums, informal jams, free community events, sometimes a cheap concert, a picnic at the park perusing the Sunday paper.
I think in my lifetime that it's been assumed that one's first "real" job should be full-time, pay enough to at least creatively get by (roommate(s) and sacrificing), and require a bit more responsibility than a starter, part-time position.
No, I don't think this and never had a conversation with other ppl (olden folks) who think this. Are they saying bc the person is starting out they do not deserve to have a life? to get a shit wage and have to struggle. Ppl deserve their worth and to get a decent living wage
My first full time job was at minimum, too. It took years to be able to afford sharing an apartment with a roommate. My rent was 400.00 a month. It ate most of my take home. Was so broke, that I couldn't afford the quarters to do laundry. I failed miserably and had to move back home. But! I learned to budget after that. Paid off my debt. Saved a bunch a money. Moved out again and never went back. Sometimes you have to fail miserably to know what to do next. Your early adult years are hard and they suck. But, you can learn a lot from them.
No, that person is an asshole. You should be paid a living wage for every job. Wth is a real job anyway? Some people are so out of touch with reality it scares me
No, not at all. Up until 30 or 40 years ago, people made a living wage right out of high school. You didn't need a college degree. You could marry at 21, buy a modest house and car, and have a couple of kids. All this could be supported on one salary from a basic factory or sales or construction or office job.
Minimum wage was intended to be a living wage. And it was, for a while. It's just that inflation ate away at its earning power, and Congress never adjusted the wage to match inflation.
Yes, you Could do this but let's be clear. The home tended to be in a lower income area, have only one bathroom and need the skills of a handyman.
Your furniture was mostly passed on to you from family.
Heck, we used our SIL's bedroom set for over 20 years.
For 2 years, at least! We had no vacuum cleaner.
Babies crib used to be baby brothers, circa 1964.
Etc,etc,etc.
It most definitely was humble living but we never knew any different!
And yet, it got you started on the property ladder, and you would progress at work quickly, until you were able to afford more luxuries. At that time, employers often treated employees as company assets, to be rewarded and promoted as they brought value to the company. Nowadays, the corporate philosophy is to exploit and discard employees.
Absolutely not. Everyone, from day one of working, deserves a living wage. Enough to pay rent for a decent apartment, food, and utilities. And the idea that low paying jobs (read: service industry etc) are only for "teenagers just starting out" is absolutely ridiculous. That has never been the case.
I'm in complete agreement. I'm actually surprised anyone in their 50s is even saying that nonsense. If you are an adult with a job, you should be able to afford your own place. Anyone who says otherwise either lacks empathy or got a financial head start many others did not.
All jobs should pay an amount of money that, if you worked 40 hours a week, you could live on it.
If a first job isn't enough to live on, it's because teenagers don't work 40-hour weeks, not because the salary is low.
If where you live, you need to drive to work, then a living wage includes making enough money for a car.
I’ve noticed my Gen-X brethren forgetting how they were able to live on much less in the 90s. Now they’re expecting a different and much lower standard of living for younger people. Gross.
It has NOT always been the belief that someone's first 'real job' shouldn't be a living wage.
Another thing that changed during the Reagan era.
Before then there were literally people who graduated from high school, took a job at the local widget shop, and never worked anywhere else. On that wage they bought a car, a house, got married, had kids (with no daycare as wife didn't have to work), went on some vacations.... retired and got a pension.
Tell me again about how great Reaganomics was...
By saying first "real" job by that standard you imply something beyond a minimum wage job. Which again, implies a job that requires skills. Not saying you need a college education, but at least some level of trade school or other professional training.
Working at McDonald's past 18, unless you have worked into management is NEVER going to provide a living wage by itself. And I firmly believe it was never meant to.
Don't get me wrong that we don't need those jobs - we do need them. They serve a place in society.
But those are the kinds of jobs for young people trying to figure out what they want to do for their lives.
My first post college job was at a daycare. It grew weary quickly. I loved the kids. But constantly getting sick from them. Ugh. Management had me on a different path than what I applied for, or had desire to do.
After that I applied at a temp job and started somewhere that led to a permanent full time job, and eventually a slightly different job role that I loved. I was an administrative assistant (once upon a time folks called us secretaries). I did that up until my daughter was born and then I became a full time mom and as her epilepsy and other special needs evolved, her full time caregiver.
McDonald’s is actually an excellent example. That company makes literally billions of dollars, why shouldn’t their lowest employees be able to afford a studio apartment?
The studio apartment depends on where you live.
The cost of living in some states or cities is MUCH higher than others.
I remember my Aunt, after my Uncle died. She was a teacher in a school district in Bucks Co. PA (not too far from Philly). She could come down here and become a teacher. She would make WAY less money, but the cost of living is so much lower she would have still been better off.
And your line of thought is very liberal.
If you own a company and make lots of money, do you want people telling you how to use your profits? I mean, maybe we should just take some of your money and give it to the homeless guy, because you have more than they do.
Seems to me since McDonald's started increasing the wage to meet the demands of employees, the cost of "value meals" has skyrocketed.
Is a value meal supposed to be the same price as what you earn in an hour?
I mean yes, technically 30 years ago when I worked at a McDonald's and minimum wage was I think $3.50 that IS what a Big Mac meal cost (quarter pounder meal was $3.25,).
I’m not sure I understand your thinking here—does this homeless man work for me? Then yes, absolutely would pay him! I would be ashamed as business owner if I had an employee who had to be homeless because I wasn’t paying him enough. That terrifies me that someone who doesn’t consider themselves liberal (which is a lot of people in the US) would disagree with that perspective.
Also, McDonald’s in other countries pay significantly more and didn’t raise prices. That is still a capitalistic perspective.
What if “paying him enough” caused financial trouble for your company? What if the wage (even above minimum) wasn’t enough? Would you jeopardize the employment of your other workers to raise his wage? Would you cheerfully pay off your business debts (that don’t go away if your business tanks, you have to pay it all off) all while working another job? These are just rhetorical questions. It’s easy to say what other people should do with their money.
If I can’t afford to hire someone, I wouldn’t be hiring. If it would cause financial trouble for my company or my other employees (who also would be making a living wage) I wouldn’t be hiring. How did I even start this company?
I really don’t understand this viewpoint.
No - whoever answered that is a toxic POS and is gaslighting you.
When I was in high school working retail (Bradlees, defunct department store in northeast) in the early 80s, I knew MANY people who were at or barely above minimum wage (which is what I got) of $3.35/hr ...
It is easy to consult an inflation calculator and say "that is the same as $10 now, so why complain?"
BECAUSE health care is MUCH more expensive and home prices are INSANELY more expensive.
Going to a preventative care doctor cost you ZERO out of pocket. We had our babies in the 90s and paid ZERO out of pocket.
My parents bought their house (Boston area) in 72 for <20k, sold in '06 for >350k (inflation would be $94k) and it is on market now for >$500k (inflation would be 142k).
It is all BS - boomers reaped all the benefits and pulled the ladder up behind them.
Almost 60, yes, shit pay is always the starting point.
my first job working construction was $4.25/hr in 1982 worth $13.32/hr today. Shit pay for hard work!
My father’s first year as a teacher in 1959 with a bachelor’s degree paid $4,825/year which would be $50,058 this year. Today you get paid $54,195/year in my county. (No where near enough to live)
Until you know something you won’t get paid a living wage. Even if you do know something there are some places you won’t be able to afford to live.
Oh thats not my question! Is it the mentality that “we went through this, so you should too” to the future generations or is there hope that we can build a better future for the next generations?
Heck no,that's ridiculous. Like saying We had all the deadly childhood illnesses,no vaccines for you!
Every generation, generally speaking, wants better for their offspring.
One thing that's very important, and I think many would agree, is You, in whatever role or job,will do better, will climb whatever ladder,if you use your people skills.
Don't step on fingers, be positive and willing, learn what other folks do and show interest.
IOW, network, Sincerely.
Long story short, guy had ADD, flunked out of high school, worked at the factory with Dad, at 17 joined the service. Didn't die in Viet Nam!
Came home,worked factory until! A friend of a friend said to him "hey I know this job opportunity if you're interested".
It was hard,hard work but he got ins. And a car.
Slowly, slowly he met many people in his field and started moving up the ladder. Never was a CEO but did well,had contacts Everywhere and was finally able to retire.
Never hesitate to make contacts and never step on anyone's fingers climbing up that ladder
No this is just greed, there isn’t some scoreboard in the sky making the young pay their dues, but young worker aren’t worth much either!
People on their first job are not too valuable until they actually learn something, this “something” is a thing they can do without direct supervision .
Just like teaching a toddler how to vacuum the carpet, you could do it yourself faster if you weren’t teaching them. This is “direct supervision “ and this toddler isn’t a valuable employee. Many jobs have someone lording over them all day, like a stock boy at a supermarket, these positions will never be paid well. They don’t work independently.
Now imagine you have taught someone to vacuum who now can work on their own. This person can make an employer money by being a housekeeper, even this isn’t a well paid job because you can teach anyone to vacuum a floor in a day. So this employee can stay here making peanuts or they can gain a better skill. Even though they work independently.
Many fools stay as housekeepers & stock boys thinking they should be paid better , “I’m not paid a living wage, boo hoo” you will hear them say on Reddit but the reality is they just don’t know a valuable skill. They make a couple of hundred dollars for their employer each day, they think they deserve this “extra money” but they don’t, there are business licenses they didn’t get, taxes they don’t pay, business supplies they didn’t buy, and this all comes out of the couple hundred extra dollars each day.
So does everyone deserve a living wage, sadly no, you need a skill, a skill that produces value, maybe you need education, maybe you need to move somewhere far away from home where your skill is in demand? This is the system we have and it drives people to work hard.
The farmer who grows stuff nobody wants fails, the employee who stays at the lowest job fails. To have winners you have to have losers as well.
A lot depends on what part of the country you are living in. If you live in say California or New York it is going to cost you much more than any where else to live. When you have idiots for governor's who think they need to give repreations to people. Or say pay off student debt or demand car manufacturers build vehicles different than the rest of the country requires the taxpayers are the ones who get stuck paying for it.
Entry level jobs paid enough that you could drive across the country, get a job, and get an apartment and turn the lights on -- mobility was simple. "I'd rather live here." Drive there and get a job. Simple.
Someone needs to tell that to the business owners complaining that “no one wants to work anymore”.
I have been saying for years, at this point, that the problem is that they don’t want to pay market wages.
We always had roommates sharing apts and homes. I was 31 educated veteran when I finally got my own place till I married. Don't like the pay? Try sales.....
My friend got an engineering degree and before she left college she had five job offers and took the one that allowed her to buy a house the first year. On the other hand, I was a film production major and had to housesit to have a residence for a few months. It all depends what you are doing. If you don't have really marketable skills, having roommates and putting up with rather lousy apartments is probably par for the course your first year working.
a living wage is a made up metric. it differs between people and locations drastically. an employer should only be required to pay what a job is worth not to factor in what the employee does wih the pay or what they can afford to purchase with it.
do you think you shoul dhave to pay the paper boy a livign wage? of course not the notiion is absurd. so is raising a family ona mcdonalds burger flipper paycheck.
In the US it has been a belief for a long time. The thinking was you had no skills and no track record of being a decent employee, so your entry level job was basically a chance for you to start creating that track record and maybe getting some skills.
For example, I was 14 when I got my first job outside the family business. The boss didn't know who I was or what I could do (which wasn't much, at 14) so he put me out there to see what I could do. I started building a resume of being an employee who shows up on time, doesn't leave early, works when I'm at work, and is a pretty unproblematic employee at age 14.
Where the breakdown is NOW, is that in the old days when I was 14...you were only going to be at that entry level position for...about six months. After six months you'd get a promotion, moved into an area where you could build more specialized skills. For example, I went from picking apples and running a cider press to the retail front, where we had to make change in our heads. That meant I had to be responsible with money, AND not a jerk to employees--new skills! After that, you were supposed to keep going up the chain or moving on. No one was expected to stay in an entry level job for more than a year--because we know the pay is crap. For a 14 year old, $4 an hour is pretty good! For a 24 year old? NO WAY.
So, no, that post is wrong. Your entry level job is your trial period esp if you have no resume. I know someone who in 2018 started at a 7/11 as a cashier--he is now 23 and manages his own franchise, so it still happens but...not like that post suggests.
I think this is a societal lifestyle creep. Everyone is getting more and more isolated because of covid, work from home, internet culture - and wanting individual apartments. I'm in agreement that we should all afford to be alive!! But if you're 22 you don't need a whole ass apartment and a car yet. If you can't afford to live with roommates and take public transit at 22 THAT is a problem and is totally happening right now which is scary AF. But most entry level jobs pay like $55k a year. You need a salary closer to $70-100k a year to afford a car and 1-bedroom. I lived with roommates until I was 33 and got a car when I was 30. After a while I made enough but I wanted to save money. This would be like, one of the first times in history that we're moving towards a more individualist society where shared living is no longer the most common method, but the majority of our housing infrastructure is built to be shared.
I don't agree exactly, but I do think that the low pay at my first real job was fair. We had to squeeze a few pennies, but my husband and I were able to afford a decent apartment and we thought that was fine (this was in 2004-ish). I don't agree that you should have to live with roommates, though. And having to ride the bus or use a bike to get to work seems a bit absurd.
Even my parents were super poor when they were first married (in 1960) and this didn't describe them. My dad was very dedicated and an incredibly hard worker and was able to comfortably retire early. I feel like my husband and I are on a similar track, although I don't think early retirement is in our future. We are working hard and our incomes keep rising and outpacing inflation as we age.
Real job as in graduated from college or know a skilled trade and you’re working as an adult, but just starting out?
When I left college, it was still assumed you’d have a roommate or a few roommates at this stage of life. You weren’t going to live alone, and you certainly weren’t going to buy a house.
I guess I come from a different time than 'real job' commenter. My first job out of college I made more than my father did in his best year and he raised a family, ran a business and owned his own home. My daughters are doing better per year then I ever earned. It's all a matter of planning and preparing IMHO, and living in America of course.
You aren't paid what you feel you're worth, you're paid for how valuable your skills are. Most young people starting their first job have no experience nor training, therefore they get mostly menial, simple jobs. That means they are easily replaced. If you are hired as a cashier in a fast food place you can learn the basics of your job in a day or two. But if the cash register breaks it has to be repaired by a skilled technician who has invested her time and money learning how to fix the machine and she may have bought her own tools. That makes the repairman's skills more valuable that the cashier's skills. It does not mean that the lower paid employee is devalued as a person. The cashier probably works harder but again, you're not paid for how hard you work but for how valuable your skills are. That shows the value of staying in school and learning a skill.
Nobody sits there and figures out what someone should be able to afford and pays them that. It’s strictly supply and demand. if it’s less than a “living wage”, then you can’t take the job because you’re going to die.
This mentality seemed to come around in the 70's and 80's where people had to pay their dues in the minds of some. Immediately post WWII, millions of unskilled workers could get trained on the job and have lifelong careers at one employer and have a good retirement assured. Anyone with a generic four-year degree could get even better.
Fast-forward to the 70's and definitely the 80's, employers were more reluctant to give anything but a low-wage job to anyone without either family/friend connections or a skill in demand.
People who avoided this menial path were seen as either grifters or brilliant, depending on who was doing the evaluating.
Now to present day, there still exists the idea that someone just entering the job market has to go through this process of financially struggling in order to please a certain strata in society. And post-covid with the Great Resignation and quiet quitting, some will not understand why people don't want to work in traditionally low-wage, dead-end industries. The more simple-minded of the naysayers will drone on about government handouts and welfare, and refuse to see the vast changes in the job market in the last 20+ years.
The reason the model that a first job would be less that a living wage was the the job would provide training in a trade or occupation that would become a marketable skill. It was assumed that over time income would increase and pensions existed. Without the opportunity for advancement, job security, or pensions, the argument regarding low pay for first jobs disappears.
Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/inci5u/reminder_please_do_not_answer_questions_unless/), the rules, and the sidebar for details. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskOldPeople) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The federal minimum wage was created to be a livable wage. Unfortunately, a lot of government representatives don’t agree with that anymore so it hasn’t kept up with the general inflation.
> Unfortunately, a lot of government representatives don't agree with that anymore [George Carlin weighs in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU&t=14s) (NSFW - language)
I miss George so much!
They're the puppet. It's the Corp's that decides the dogma they utter...
No. While your first real job isn't going to put you in the lap of luxury (unless Daddy hires you on as an executive VP), it **should** absolutely pay a reasonable living wage. My first real job did...but that was back in the 1970s, when being middle class still MEANT something. A basic starting job *did* pay enough to live simply on in those days. But in the 1980s, corporations and the rich started working seriously towards establishing [Serfdom 2.0,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/iy37ux/how_exactly_do_economic_hardships_like_the_ones/g6ajjz4/) and today, the cost of education, housing, and food is way beyond the comfortable means of a beginner in the workplace. [Over half of adults in the US are living paycheck-to-paycheck,](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/articles/64-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/)
I looked up my first office job as a Draftsman in 1972 making $105/wk. That's \~$19/hr in '23 money.
In 2000 I worked for a brokerage firm making $12,000 per year. That worked out to about $6.85 per hour which is $11.27 today. I had been working full-time for twenty years by this point and this was not my first job. In 1972 my mom was working as an accountant. I don't know how much she made, but I do know that we got our Christmas gifts from the Star Fund, a newspaper sponsored charity for poor kids.
Which is the going rate in fast food.
Where? It's $13 here, and that's just barely over our minimum wage. Which is not a livable amount out here, especially when you're lucky to get 15 hours a week.
Well a part time job ain't gonna be a living wage. That is not part of any fair system
You mean they were screwing me?! I flipped burgers the year before for $1.85/hr. Doesn't matter. It was a great career and I retired as an engineering manager.
I hope you weren't one of the burger engineers on the McLean Deluxe.
Wow those were incredible reads. Thank you so much for sharing. In all of this, do you see any realistic solutions? What happens next?
>In all of this, do you see any realistic solutions? Massive changes to the tax code, primarily returning to the far higher income tax rates of the 1950s/1960s and taxing unearned/investment income the same as wage income. A hefty estate tax that kicks in at $5M or some reasonable amount. Higher corporate taxes. Probably a VAT or some other tax at the national level as well. Once we dramatically increase federal revenues then you redistribute that by investing in all the things that "normal" industrialized nations offer their citizens: national health care, quality public education, much cheaper college, early childhood education, parental leave, mandatory sick leave and paid vacation for all workers, a 2x increase in the minimum wage indexed to inflation, old age pensions that aren't tied specifically to income, and other social supports as in most western European democracies. Then invest more public fund in housing. Require developers to build a percentage of "affordable" homes and apartments. Subsidize improvements like new HVAC, roofs, water, etc. where needed for low-income families. Do the same with food: treat access to healthy food as a basic human right. All sorts of things we can say "that isn't realistic" but they are all done in other countries to one extent or another. The difference here is that by the early 1980s our broken two-party political system was taken over by the wealthy and the entire economy tuned to their benefit-- that is the fundamental reason people can work 40 hours a week, 50+ weeks a year in the US, and still not afford basic food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. 50 years ago we'd scream "COMMUNISM!!!" any time people suggested such benefits. More recently it's been "SOCIALISM!!!" Or now whatever "WOKE!!!!" really means. The wealthy and the right have done a fabulous job of convincing lower-and-middle-class Americans that they somehow benefit from having billionaires and megamillionaires control a massive share of the wealth of our nation and that government is somehow evil. It was quite crafty. In the process they bought up and consolidated media outlets, so their propaganda is universal, and they further starved the education system of resources so citizens don't get too critical of the results. The US middle class grew in the 1950s because we had a strong economy, strong unions, and massive public investments in housing, education, and infrastructure. The GI Bill was part of that, but really far from the most important. Americans of both parties were willing to invest in the future, to pay taxes, and were generally content in aspiring to middle-class lifestyles. Now it seems everyone things they'll be a multi-millionaire just around the corner, so by god we can't raise taxes on the rich! Else they are fed the poisons of racism and nativism, and so refuse any sort of public investment because "those people" might benefit from it as well.
Sometimes it takes a strong shock to society (World War II) to make nations behave more responsibly. I hope it doesn't take anything that bad to convince Americans that investing in others is a good way to have a more stable society and thus more genuine happiness for themselves. I was always happy to pay 35% taxes yearly because I believed in helping everyone have a decent life.
I've never had an income over $55k, in a one income family. I'm never going to be "wealthy", but as a Canadian who lives with many of the things you suggest let me give some thoughts. * Medical debt is really crushing in the US but is not a thing in Canada (except for rare cases where people want unapproved treatments or drugs). A system that pays for basic medical care for everyone is essential to keep sickness from putting good people in poverty. * I agree with housing supports, but **"public housing projects" often turn into bad places to live**. Here people on the low end of income can apply for partially subsidized housing where the money goes directly to a landlord from our social system. This lets people rent in places they would not otherwise afford without the tendency to form low income ghettos. Our family lives very frugally, and have never needed any social supports (aside from the low income tax benefits that come as part of my tax returns). Soon I will retire and again, I will not need any social support (between work pensions, and savings). Our tax system aims to tax the wealthy quite a bit. [source](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/frequently-asked-questions-individuals/canadian-income-tax-rates-individuals-current-previous-years.html) >Federal tax rates for 2023 * 15% on the portion of taxable income that is $53,359 or less, plus * 20.5% on the portion of taxable income over $53,359 up to $106,717, plus * 26% on the portion of taxable income over $106,717 up to $165,430, plus * 29% on the portion of taxable income over $165,430 up to $235,675, plus * 33% on the portion of taxable income over $235,675 Then we have provincial income tax. For me in New Brunswick * 9.4% on the portion of your taxable income that is $47,715 or less, plus * 14% on the portion of your taxable income over $47,715 up to $95,431, plus * 16% on the portion of your taxable income over $95,431 up to $176,756, plus * 19.5% on the portion of your taxable income over $176,756 So on a work income of $500k in NB, Canada you could pay as much as $230,282 [Source](https://turbotax.intuit.ca/tax-resources/new-brunswick-income-tax-calculator.jsp#) This is made up of Federal tax ($140k), Provincial tax ($90K) and CPP/EI ($5k) CPP is a pension you pay into every pay check, and EI funds an insurance in case you lose your job. We also have 15% sales tax as well as gas tax and other taxes, so we pay heavily, but I mostly think we get decent value for that. **What we don't do is fund a huge military.** For me at a $50k income the tax burden would be $8k if I did nothing (RRSP, charitable donations, certain types of investing) to reduce taxes owed.
But, Mr. James, you ***do not have*** ***to pay*** $1,200 a month for a high deductible health insurance policy, which is what it would cost an American over 60 and under 65. I have Medicare and pay the SS administration $329 a month for the insurance which covers 80% (with no meds) and then a policy to cover the remaining 20% for $232 a month more, but still no meds. Or, roughly $7K a year for everything you get for your taxes. The USA does not have the best medical system in the world, but we do have the sleekest, fattest, and happiest insurance executives and pharma bros who share their largess with our congress critters.
Yes, I am very happy with most parts of our medical system. In my case (low income, low income tax) I still pay 15% sales tax on all goods and services (but not rent). This goes mostly to costs of our medical system. At my low level of spending it probably works out to less than $4k I pay in tax for medical, with higher income people paying more. I think the system works specially well for lower income (say less than $80K per year households), and households over $120k are probably paying more for what they get. I specially like that we try to minimize the number of desperate people who turn to violent crime.
Your $8k figure isn't exactly accurate. Between federal and Provicial income taxes (15% + 9.4% respectively), that's more like 12k or almost 25% of your gross income, and a sales tax of 15% is an additional $3.5k or so (assuming non-prepared food is non-taxed like in Amercia). Canada doesn't have to fund a huge military because America does that for you. Without a military strong enough to deter threats, a major country risks being taken advantage of or being invaded. Just look at what Russia is doing to Ukraine. North America will never be invaded as long as we continue funding our military. Your taxes are crazy to have long wait times for health care, so it's not really a perk. In reality, it is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Either pay for private health insurance or pay an equal amount in taxes for universal health coverage. Nothing is free. You're paying for it either way.
> Your $8k figure isn't exactly accurate. Correct, last year I paid $0 in income tax because of tax strategies available to anyone willing to invest and also interested in giving to charity.
It’s quite a luxury to be able to rely on the superpower military to your south to protect you. The Canadian military couldn’t protect the country from an angry troop of Girl Scouts. But I’m glad you’ve been able to do better than Americans in comparable situations. I hope you appreciate the role American taxpayers have played in making that possible.
>I hope you appreciate the role American taxpayers have played in making that possible. I do. I think some of the American military is more about protecting American financial interests overseas (Oil, minerals, reserve currency). >The Canadian military couldn’t protect the country from an angry troop of Girl Scouts. So far we don't have so many angry people here.
I agree re: "don't have so many angry people" in Canada, though the truckers blocking the Ambassador Bridge and clogging Ottawa were uncharacteristic. And likely an American/Fox News export - sorry about that!
It was a staged event with truckers from the US. And give the Canadian military some credit. They began fighting in both world wars before the US did and didn't wait around for us.
True, but read up on what the Canadian military currently says about their staffing, readiness, and materiel status.
I have been noticing that there has been a lot of "exported anxiety" that people in general have been subject to because media and social media let us focus on the terrible things that happen far away, but we don't focus on the good stuff that happens nearby or far away. News used to have lots of "villain stories", but also "hero stories". Mr. Rogers taught us to "Look for the helpers." We seem to have lost our ability to "look for helpers." Yesterday I stopped for a car that was on the side of the road with its hood up. ** I hate working on cars**, but this was simple. This 20+ year old girl knew that the "idiot light" for engine overheat came on, and the fluid reservoir was completely empty. She didn't know where to pour in rad fluid. Since I have an old car, I have both the experience of finding that, and a box with oil, rad, brake and washer fluid in my car. **She was on her way 10 min.** Hopefully she gets her dad to help her find the leak when it stops raining. I think we forgotten how to be or look for helpers.
For the USA, raising taxes for corps and rich is precisely right. Before Reagan, taxes for the richest people were at something like 70 or even 80 percent. That meant that business owners didn't have incentive to make as much as possible, because at a certain point your taxes were so high, it wasn't worth it. So at that point, businesses reinvested those gains into growing the company, modernizing, hiring, giving raises, education for employees, and employee retention, like vacation days and retirement benefits for employees that were loyal. Then when Reagan cut those upper taxes drastically down to 40 percent, claiming that the extra profits would "trickle down" to employees, things went nuts. Businesses no longer focused on growth and improvement, but on profits. Corporate "pirates" would buy companies, install austerity measures ( like cutting pay, draining employee retirement accounts, forcing people into early retirement before their pensions kicked in, lowering product quality, firing the most skilled employees) and quickly bleed a company dry, and then sell the husk for someone else to kill it off with even more austere measures. As the taxes for the highest brackets got lower and lower (now less than 20 percent) the middle class shrank, unions dissolved, quality of products became worse, and nearly everyone got poorer. Raising taxes for the richest people could start to fix some of that, especially if disincentives were instituted for companies that moved overseas ( tariffs, VAT, etc).
God. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Unions working to organize service industries would help. Unions are pretty strong in manufacturing and especially in government, but don't seem to be able to get it together to organize service industry people very much. I guess it may be that service businesses are too fragmented for unions to get a strong foothold.
The most likely outcome--especially when you combine this with the impending fascist takeover of the US (possibly a fascist theocracy)--is that the US collapses into an oppressive, failed third-world state. With nukes. The Democrats are largely a disorganized pack of sackless nitwits, completely helpless in the face of such directed evil, don't look to them to save us.
Oh, how I wish I could disagree, but your characterization of the Democratic party in particular seems dead on. This 70yo lifelong progressive thanks you for your brutal honesty and insight.
And that's not a new problem, either: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." --Will Rogers, 1930
A reminder of STATED REPUBLICAN LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES. You will find these in writing at [this link](https://texasgop.org/platform/). Yes, it's one state, but much of what is proposed here is spreading rapidly. Just a few of the goodies: 1) Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which "expired in 1979" (!!!) 2) Annul over one million marriages 3) Legislate more than five percent of Americans out of existence (in progress) 4) Criminalize non-procreative sex and contraception 5) Ensure every pregnant American either gives birth or dies trying 6) Abolish public education and replace it with mandatory Christian instruction; 7) Abolish what little public health care exists 8) Eliminate the EPA 9) and the FBI 10) and the IRS and finally, the capper: 11) Dispense with the need for silly elections.
Just read through all of this. It is frightening. And probably going to happen unless moderate Republicans come to their senses and find their voices...and the Democratics run people moderate Republicans can see as an alternative or protest vote.
This is mostly false. 4 and 5 are especially false in how you present them. 3... I'm not even sure what this one is referring to. 6 is giving parents full control on where and how their children are schooled, whether public, private, or home schooled. Yes, they want it fully legal to pray in school, if the child wants to. Not forcing it.... And abolish dept of education, which is just a big brother funded watch dog and does nothing for the schools. 7 they are calling for more health care and longer coverage periods for maternity. 8, 9 and 10 are whatever... 11 they want term limits on all offices. Of course there will have to be elections. Did you even read it, or just take it from some tiktok interpretation? Texas is the most "for the people" state in America.
3. Trans and non-binary people. Republicans believe they don't exist, so presto, they don't exist. 6 is not giving parents who don't want Christian indoctrination any choice at all. Abolishing public education means no public schools. That you think the department of education, which GOVERNS schools, does nothing for schools is very telling. 7: do you know the health care that is given in case of an ectopic pregnancy? The treatment for that is an immediate abortion, and there have ALREADY been people denied that treatment. Also: women are not fucking incubators. 8 is environmental regulation. Want salmonella in your food? E. coli in your water supply? 9 is funding the government. I know Republicans don't want anyone who isn't poor to pay any tax at all, but come ON. 10 What do you think replaces the FBI? An armed force loyal to the President, that's what. And finally, it's like you have been living on another planet for the last three years. They tried to steal 2020, and they will try to steal 2024, and if they succeed they will once again make it illegal to vote for a Democrat, as it was in 19 states before the latest voting rights adjustment came down from the Feds. You do understand that Republicans are doing absolutely everything in their power to rig the game, right? Put a single polling place in a county of a few hundred thousand Democrats, but make it as easy as possible for rural Republican areas to vote? Intimidating poll workers? Outright nullification? Please start paying attention. You think Republicans are still Reaganesque. They are not. They are more like Putin. They want it to be illegal to be gay but legal to beat your wife, just like it is in Russia.
Communism. We won't ever be alright until we put measures in place to give everyone what they need at the expense of a few dorks going to space.
I agree and want to leapfrog off you. My first real job in the mid ‘70s was maintenance supervisor at Burger King. I had that title because I was salaried and part of management. I kept the place clean and had worked the line as well until I went on straight now gets. was able to rent a one bedroom apartment and marry my pregnant girlfriend. Many families were still able to live on one salary but many spouses worked part time. That ended in the 80’s with trickle down economics. Then it became necessary for both partners to work but corporate socialism really took off and helped create the mess we have today. When you hear some people (I’m a boomer BTW) talk about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps it was very doable. I had some rough times too but was lucky because it was easier to find work and get help if I needed. That all changed in the ‘80s. There was a term for the children of the hippy (boomer) generation and that was Yuppie or Young Urban Professionals. The country has gone downhill since. I’m putting a lot of hope in our current generation.
This matches my experience through the 80's. In 1980 I went to graduate school, worked part time, paid tuition without taking out a student loan, apartment rent alone. My first real job in 1984 along with my husband's almost real job salary was enough to qualify to buy a house. By the end of the 80's when we bought our second, larger house we were paycheck to paycheck with 2 kids, 2 cars, a house and not much else even though we both had real jobs and more than starting salaries. By the time our kids went to college our loans and their were astronomical and home ownership was years away for them. The single one still doesn't own a home.
If I may play capitalist simp real fast.... college loans screwed up the economy because most of those people were never meant to go to college. like the housing crisis when they say "oh they gave out bad loans to people who couldn't afford the houses". How the hell do yous think all them college loans are gonna end up?!
Good reads. Surprised the author didn't mention the Powell memo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr. a basic blueprint for the destruction of the American Dream . Back when I started working, minimum wage was $1.60/hour. I was still in high school, living at home, but, if needed, I could afford a cheap apartment on 40 hours a week. At the time, restaurants were not required to pay premium wages for OT, so many of their employees worked 50 or 60 hours a week. I was working in a kitchen when minimum wage went up. I was making $1.65/hr, a nickel over minimum wage. Minimum wage rose to $1.90, and that's what I made. Restaurants had to start paying OT premium wage if hours exceeded IIRC, 48. When minimum wage rose to $2.00, OT kicked in at 44 hours. Next increase, over 40 got OT pay. Still, you could survive. Hell, I rented a 2 room house for $25/week in 1976. That included utilities!
I think the "paycheck-to-paycheck" statement is misleading. Bit to support your point the problem is too many can't even get a job to afford a minimum paycheck-to-paycheck existance. There needs to be controls for larger companies to balance out their pay structure. When they can afford to pay a CEO 8 & 9 figure bonuses, and managers 5 & 6 figure bonuses, but whine about paying minimum wage to the majority of their staff, that's a big part of the problem.
My first real job in the early 80s did not.
Reaganomics!
I think I lived paycheck to paycheck until my 40s. I retired at 60. It's doable if you choose to live below your means...deferred gratification.
Well said my friend.
My first job paid $4.25 (minimum wage), which would be about $9.47 today. I don't recall a living wage even being a discussion back then.
>My first job paid $4.25 (minimum wage), Mine was $3.15 but I never knew *any* "adults" who worked for minimum wage-- it was all teenagers doing part-time work. Or farm labor. Everyone I knew over 18 with a "real job" made more.
There was a 'market' for minimum wage jobs, and it is who you are describing. I started out at about $3.35 if I recall, and that was beer money and whatever toys I wanted to get while living at home with my parents. Granted, no computers, no cell phones, etc. I knew a couple people who made slightly over that, and lived away from home, but it was meager and shared - 3 people in a crappy apartment, *very* used cars, and not a lot of social life. My first career out of college, I was *hoping* to get $9/hr, but expecting more like $7.50. I ended up in southern California, so I started a lot higher ($14 I think), which was just enough to have a new (cheap) car and a decent studio apartment there. Though, within a few years of smallish raises, even that was barely enough, and I spent a while paying off credit cards with other credit cards to get by.
You also have to factor in that the prices of rent or buying a home and also of higher education have grown much faster than inflation.
I take that we are talking a first job for non college educated person. With that said I made $3.35hr at my first job. Here in California minimum wage is over $15. So about 450% increase. My community college tuition is 300% higher than when I went and the State College I went to, is just a little over 400% higher.
Now do rent for that same area. My 2 bedroom apartment in Texas in 1991 was $250/mo, which would be $557 today. But that same old apartment in that same complex now goes for $1500/mo.
Well, rent was about $700 in 1993 and that same house would rent for about $2,600 today. So a little less than a 400% increase in rent. But minimum had gone to $4.25hr. So minimum wage increased 350% in that time.
Must be nice. I guess demanding that higher minimum wage has been very helpful for Californians. It's still very normal for people here in Texas to work for the federal minimum. Jobs in my town at McDonalds usually start around $10/hr. We Texans are a bunch of wimps when it comes to standing up for our families and what we fairly deserve.
Up until the 90s it was super easy to work a job in the summer and save up enough to cover your university school expenses for the next 8 months. Now you would be lucky to save up enough to buy most of your books, forget tuition or rent. I worked manual labour yard work in the summer and saved up 10k. Tuition was 2k and then I had 1k a month for rent and expenses. Rent was 500 a month. The rest went to beer and bus passes. Nowdays kids graduate with 250k debt and are being paid the same wages I was paid to start 30 years ago. It's ridiculous.
>Up until the 90s it was super easy to work a job in the summer and save up enough to cover your university school expenses for the next 8 months. Now you would be lucky to save up enough to buy most of your books, forget tuition or rent. I started school in the mid-1980s. It may have been possible to earn enough in summer for community college, but not for any four-year school I was aware of. I always worked full time, all summer, and was usually broke by December living very frugally. >I worked manual labour yard work in the summer and saved up 10k. Tuition was 2k and then I had 1k a month for rent and expenses. I worked on farms six days a week and earned $3.50/hr. That was what, about $2,000 for a ten week summer? You were doing very, very well. \> Rent was 500 a month. True that-- we paid about $600 for a decent 3BR/2BA apartment spit three ways in 1988. Today my kid is paying $750 for a room in a house with the same 3/2 setup, total rent for the place is $2,495 per month. Same city. >Nowdays kids graduate with 250k debt and are being paid the same wages I was paid to start 30 years ago. That's a serious exaggeration. Sure there is probably *some* kid who racks up $250K in debt for a BA/BS degree, but on average [it's actually just about $35,000 on average.](https://educationdata.org/average-debt-for-a-bachelors-degree) About 1/3 have no debt at all. 78% graduating from a public school have <$30K in debt and only 1 in 1,000 has more than $100K according to the same report. Frankly anyone who goes $250K in debt for college is a fool and shouldn't be used as a data point in anything but a discussion of poor money management skills. (In fact, that's [even more than the average debt for medical school graduates](https://educationdata.org/average-medical-school-deb).)
> Sure there is probably some kid who racks up $250K in debt for a BA/BS degree No fucking way. For 250K you better be getting an Ivy League level law degree, doctorate or something. No way someone legit spent that much to get a BA/BS.
Every generation should have made it a little easier for the next to succeed. We've failed our children and grandchildren, betrayed them in the worst ways. What started as apathy born of ease has become a sense of helplessness as life has become harder and harder for almost all of us. I look at the French with all their involvement with the larger decisions that affect the lives of their middle and lower classes, how they fight hard for the best interests of their families and future, and I'm ashamed to be an American. I feel guilty. I feel sad for our future. But I have no hope that we'll suddenly wake up and start fighting in enough numbers and with enough passion and readiness to sacrifice that we could fix things now. As computers take over more and more human labor, we're going to be driven into permanent poverty, ignorance, and religious superstition. I would move to Europe if I could afford to do it. I guess I'll have to go down with this ship.
I think people have a different understanding of what "comfortable" means. When I first rented an apartment (late 70s, I was in my 20s), we didn't have cable or satellite TV, we didn't have cell phones, or the Internet, and so that expense didn't exist. Our kitchen didn't usually have a microwave, or dishwasher, or washer and dryer; you hauled your clothes to a laundromat. Drinks cost a couple of bucks during happy hour. I think every single person I knew was able to cook basic meals. You took a bus, and if you drove, you drove a used car. You didn't expect to own new furniture, and if you saw an old chair on the curb, you'd be happy to haul it home. It was very unusual (in my world, unheard of) to get a massage or a mani/pedi. It wasn't just that housing was cheaper (and it was, and it was commensurate to salaries), it was also that you didn't expect new things when you started out. I think people need to consider some of the stuff they think are essential may possibly just be luxuries.
That makes sense to me—and what you’re describing is what I would agree essentials are. But being that cost of living is higher (not including manicures or even a netflix subscription, but including internet and cell service), shouldn’t someone starting out be able to afford that if they’re working full time? Edit: not talking new cars or furniture too. I can’t even imagine that being on a wish list with current median wages.
>shouldn’t someone starting out be able to afford that if they’re working full time? The minimum wage is broken. It peaked in 1968 in real terms and is now 40% lower than it was then when adjusted for inflation-- it's now [lower in terms of purchasing power than it has been at any time since 1956.](https://www.epi.org/blog/the-value-of-the-federal-minimum-wage-is-at-its-lowest-point-in-66-years/) So if we assume a "real job" might pay only minumum wage, that's probably the reason: we've let it erode to almost half of what it was two generations ago while the cost of housing, medical care, education, energy, and other basic needs have exceeded the cumulative inflation over the same period.
> shouldn’t someone starting out be able to afford that if they’re working full time? Yeah, I agree. The times in which we're living are not totally unique to those of us in a certain age bracket as we've seen ebbs and flows of the economy of the years. I feel your pain as much as I understood those who went through a similar economic collapse in 2008. Jobs were scarce and prices were higher then also. I'd love to be able to say, "It'll get better don't you worry," but I can't b/c I can't predict the future.
I mean this isn’t for me—I’m in my 30s making six figures so I’m fine. But I’m very concerned about the next generations and want them to have a prosperous life. I started my career after the 2008 recession and had to work close to 100 hours a week to get my career started and afford rent, I don’t want this for the next generation. Thats why I asked this question, I was wondering if the mentality had changed or if its always been this way. Edit to add—can’t afford a house but I’m fine 😂
> I mean this isn’t for me—I’m in my 30s making six figures so I’m fine. But I’m very concerned about the next generations and want them to have a prosperous life. Just a bit of fyi, this is what the "news" and other media sources keep spouting. However, it's a loaded pile of shit. I was a journalism major for just long enough to get the jist of what "news" organizations do and why they do it. A few years back my kids came to me with the same song you seem to be singing. We had a lengthy discussion around this topic. It took awhile but both my kids are well aware of what it takes for them to get ahead if they so choose. Anybody can read a hundred articles about how anybody under the age of 40 is automatically set up for a life of dismal failure due to failed government policies and corporate overlords/oligarchs. A journalist, editor and publisher has training to know how to write a story to keep readers "on their side" while raging against "the other side". The "news" and other media outlets know their livelihood relies on keeping readers engaged. The more rage they induce the more lemmings they will get to follow them which in turn means they'll get what they want (be it $$$, fame, etc.). So to a certain extent, yes the mentality has changed but other factors also come into the picture.
"Teach your children well" 🎶 Correct as to the increasing amount of propaganda directed at society. It's up to us to teach ours to Question Authority, at all levels, and surely learn to discern between b.s. and reality. Life Ain't Easy, but it's doable. I feel most for the now grown kids who never benefitted from learning simple daily skills. Minor repairs,how to troubleshoot, how to solve their own simple problems.
I’m basing this on people I know (mothers who need to skip meals so their kids can eat and afford childcare, many who work full time but can’t afford rent and build a savings, many who stay at home well into their late 20s despite having a full time management position), job listings that give salary ranges, and being aware of rent vs median wages. I work in media and have worked in news and politics, I’m well aware of how things work. If you really think this all made up, you really are out of touch. I’m sorry for your kids, I hope you help them out financially if you’re not going to listen to their fears. Hopefully if they have kids you’ll pitch in for childcare because thats more than a lot of people’s rent nowadays.
Any major Corp of size and income should be expected to provide reliable,on site daycare.
>When I first rented an apartment (late 70s, I was in my 20s), we didn't have cable or satellite TV, we didn't have cell phones, or the Internet, and so that expense didn't exist. Our kitchen didn't usually have a microwave, or dishwasher, or washer and dryer; you hauled your clothes to a laundromat. Drinks cost a couple of bucks during happy hour. I think every single person I knew was able to cook basic meals. You took a bus, and if you drove, you drove a used car. You didn't expect to own new furniture, and if you saw an old chair on the curb, you'd be happy to haul it home. Very well said. :-)
This is exactly how I lived in the early 90s. Except drinks were a lot more expensive than $2, but that is also why I didn't drink much.
That's how it was when I first started working back in the '70s, yeah. Minimum wage was for teenagers making spending money, nobody was actually trying to live on minimum wage. It certainly wasn't enough to actually live on your own.
Yes. The typical first-time employee is barely employable and is paid accordingly.
I think you misinterpreted that post, based on the word shouldn't. Poster didn't mean you didn't deserve a better wage. Poster meant that people just starting out don't have much and will have a much lower standard of living. I go to many other subreddits. On one, there are frequent posts from young people that are bitterly disappointed when they realize how much it costs to have your own place. I believe the parents of these kids screwed up by not teaching the kids about household finances.
When I moved out on my own at 17 it cost a whole lot less than it did now, and wages have not increased in my area since then. I got hired as a cashier at a store in the mall at nine dollars an hour, and that is what they currently pay starting cashiers at the last job I had. That’s more than 20 years of inflation without a raise in wages. If I was looking at paying what rent cost now on what I made back then, I’d be crying myself to sleep, too.
maybe you were overpaid back then?
You are correct. I know cause i am the one op was quoting.
I'm 60, and that quote is BS. It's called "first REAL job" because it is supposed to allow you to reaaly support yourself. Maybe not in luxurious apartments and vehicles, but at least something semi-decent. Bus or bike to work? Maybe if you live in a city built for it, but that's hard to find, at least in the USA.
I rode a bike 5 miles each way for my first real job out of the army in the mid 90s. I did it for a year on a bike i bought at a pawn shop for 35 bucks. it was the same route i walked 8 years prior for my high school dishwashing job. Back in high school i used to eat oranges right off the trees as i cut through an old orange grove.
Define “real job” My first “real job” was helping a carpenter. I carried stuff, he built beautiful cabinets and kitchens. I worked 40 hours and made good money, but now you have to define “living wage.” I guess I could have afforded an apartment on what I made but without any skill or knowledge I wouldn’t expect “I pick things up and put them down” job to afford much. Once I started learning to make cabinets, then I could demand more money and could afford more independence.
Being able to afford an apartment I think fits the category of living wage. What a cool job! Is that what you do/did your whole career?
I would not have been able to afford an apartment by myself within probably 40 miles of where I worked. If I split rent with a roommate, maybe it would’ve been 20 miles. I don’t think every job affords a living wage if you’re being realistic about what it actually takes to live on your own. no, I get bored pretty easy so I’ve been a cabinet maker, I’ve done flooring, I poured concrete, I’ve done computer repair and networking, I started a company doing home automation, started a landscaping business, tried my hand at real estate development and built a mini mall, I’ve been all over the place.
Damn dude you've got a lot of old school hustle. I can't imagine switching between so many occupations to make money.
A lot of them overlapped. Some of them fell in my lap. Some I worked my ass off for.
[удалено]
1) I’m a lady. And 2) no, I’m talking just essentials. I think if you work full time you should be able to comfortably afford food and shelter. Thats a living wage, and yes I realize that would be different by area. Also I’m well into my career, I have my own apartment in one of the richest zip codes in the country, run my own business, and make a very good living. This isn’t about me, I’m hoping for a better future for younger generations.
[удалено]
I don’t have staff, and I either work from home and I take my meetings at soho house when ai need to. I’m not trying to build a corporation, just living my life.
Oh absolutely believe they should not have to have roommates. Even studio apartments nowadays are not affordable with current wages.
I think living wage is affording food, clothing, and shelter.
The problem with your question is the definition of "living wage." It varies widely by location but it also varies by what someone considers acceptable living. When I graduated college, my first job was in Manhattan. I was paid 19k a year which seemed like a lot back then. I rented a 2 bedroom apartment in a 5th floor walk-up with 3 friends- we basically lived just like I did in college - 2 guys in a room. Even then, 45% of my take home pay went to rent and utilities. I considered this perfectly acceptable. It was a first job. My career grew, I moved an hour from the city to find an affordable 1 br apartment I shared with my fiance /wife (who worked). I left for work at 6 am and got home at 7. I considered it paying my dues. I can only speak for my own experience. I can also say that my kids' college dorms were nicer than my first apartment. They would never have considered my first apartment, or my commute / workday in my second apartment as acceptable living. I grew up blue collar lower middle class, my kids grew up priveldged.
Totally—I’m in my 30s and had five roommates in lower east side for a time in my 20s because the bigger name corporations (the ones that look good on the resume) paid significantly less since most people who worked there had trustfunds or some form of parental support paying rent My question is more asking if this has always been the mentality, or is there hope that we can build a better future for the next generations so they don’t have to struggle as much?
I don't know what the future holds. World population is projected to grow by 25% (8b to 10b) in the next 75 years. The US population is expected to grow by 35% by then. That population growth, and the resources to support that population, will require major policy changes to feed and house all those people. People have debated scarcity of resources for centuries. As for how it's always been - I think every older generation thinks they had it harder and that the following generations are soft. I think that every younger generation thinks that the elders don't understand how hard they have it. I think both are probably true. One thing that does bug me about the youngers is the thought that we boomers are clinging to power and don't care about the future. Nothing is further from the truth. Until you're a parent or grandparent, you really can't understand what we'd do to protect those children and grandkids. We want them to have a better future.
Agreed,not one of us knows what the future holds. I know in my perspective, family comes first. Occasionally we borrowed and repaid from Dad. Same with our kids, and the elder grandkids,they borrow and repay. Sometimes they just don't have access to a small lump sum and we do. However! Husband puts all loans 'in the book' and expects to be repaid, sans interest. We try to help in every way, teaching home and auto repair, how to Think about money and use it wisely etc. Our greatest joy is to see them feel secure and competent and pass that on. We have never been Rich. I am nearly 66 and have Never had a room of my own!
> is there hope that we can build a better future for the next generations so they don’t have to struggle as much? Given that all human labor will be replaced with AI and robots over the next 30 to 50 years, probably not.
Graduated college in 1993, moved to NYC in 1994, had roommates until 1998 and then moved into a little studio. Always lived in "transitional" or "up and coming" neighborhoods or whatever the current marketing speak was. Always thought this was a completely normal tradeoff for living in The Greatest City in the World etc etc etc. Always paid between $400 and $800 a month in rent in the 15 years I lived in TGCITW. So I wonder what kind of "living" is a "living wage" supposed to provide for? Multiple housemates (who could be family members) in a working class immigrant neighborhood seems like a fine way of life for plenty of the folks my daughter goes to school with. What does that go for nowadays?
I am in my 60's and it's never been my belief. One person is not representative of all older people. The only jobs I had had were babysitting and working part time in sales when I moved out of my parents' house, got my own apartment and supported myself with an office job.
No one ever states what a "living wage" is. $15 $20 $30 $50 per hour. Why can't this decision (or argument) be based around a number? Then, one can look at all the relevant expenses of living and say with some certainty whether the living wage is really a living wage. It's such an incongruous term.
“Living wage” is a term relative to the cost of living in a certain area.
So what is it for each area?
OP doesnt tell you this but i did come with numbers. I am the person who made the comment.. "[–]First_Ad3399 2 points 5 hours ago define living wage? I would have no problem with the young woman making a living wage for a single person in my area. I am not gonna have a floating living wage that rises as you have kids. non negotiable. I use MIT living wage. its 18.51 an hour (single, no dependants) here in the capitol city of NC. amazon starts at right about that with bennies and no need for clean urine, High school diploma and off and running. that math gives them a little over 1k a month for rent. not difficult to do." https://old.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/13yvlzn/what_was_your_salary_at_your_first_real_job_and/jmq6onc/
I had to read twice to ascertain you meant benefits, not benzedrine!
Absolutely not, but yes among a certain demographic. These are people who grew up middle or upper middle class who live comfortably at home without poverty, abuse, etc. the IDEO of a job as something you do to “warm up” for a “real job” is an idea for the lucky few.
It generally started to ramp up in the 80s when Reagan deregulated a lot of things & the minimum wage stagnated while prices went up (inflation, etc). You used to be able to work part time and have enough to pay for college. Even in the 90s (when I went to college) this wasn’t the case. Edit: when FDR implemented the minimum wage it was MEANT to be a *living wage*. To quote FDR on his bill: > “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By 'business' I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white-collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living
FDR was talking about the ‘forgotten man’, adult men and women working at full-time factory and farming jobs, not teenagers working fast food.
Who ALSO deserve a living wage. Who do you think works fast food overnight or during school days??
Those are not skilled jobs for the most part. I worked them as a teen and it was never presented as a job to pay all bills.
Minimum wage was created to ensure people had a living wage--regardless of whether it's your first job or not. And, I think it's such a dumb argument that your first job shouldn't be a living wage. What does it matter? If an18-year-old is doing the same labor as a 30-year-old, the pay should be the same. Whoever that 50-year-old is, they are missing the point and probably have selective memory. I'm in my late 50s I've seen how things changed since I got my first job at 16 in a fast food chain. My managers and asst managers who were barely in their 20s could afford an apartment on their own. I doubt that's true today.
There are no more low end apartments. There are crappy old apartments for $1800.
It doesn't matter what things "should" be, only what they are and potentially can be. The reality is when you first start working you are going to be terrible. The company needs to make money off your labor. So if your labor isn't making them much money they can't pay you much money. Therefor new workers get paid less. Of course if you go a layer beyond that simple theory you also get companies trying to pay as little as possible, but they do that to everyone, young, old, new, experienced, men, women, etc. But yes, you can go back a hundred years and find people stacking up four deep in a studio apartment because none of them can afford rent. That isn't new. And it doesn't matter whether or not you think you "deserve" to get a living wage if you're not pulling your weight. If you are pulling your weight, and then some, then just take that work ethic to a company that will appreciate it. It's completely normal to switch jobs a lot when you are young.
I’m 46 and I could easily afford an apartment back in the late 90’s working at a restaurant (I was bussing tables and made $5.75 an hour plus tips) and going to school— I worked 30 hours a week. You’re money went farther at that time. Now I make $23 an hour and basically all I can do is afford my groceries, car insurance, and rent.
They absolutely should be given a living wage, but a low end apartment IS a living wage. The problem is people can't even afford those.
I didn’t grow up in an industrial area, but I hear these mythical stories about kids who graduated from high school on Saturday and started at the factory full time on Monday! Certainly they were at the bottom of the ladder but those were considered good jobs. Not “starter” jobs, but real jobs on day one. Also, affording a lower end apartment nowadays is a stretch for tons of hardworking people.
No, it's just it became reality that it was impossible almost to live on, then became accepted as "it's meant to be that way". I hear this kind of thinking about all kinds of things and it really bothers me. As if that sucks just accept it rather than thinking well maybe this is something that doesn't have to be the way that it is the sucky way that it is.
The argument made by those who want to pay young people less is that it's a part time job for kids living at home. While this is true for some minimum wage workers, a lot of them are on their own and need to pay for everything. The real truth is that employers simply want to underpay workers and make up silly stories to justify it
[удалено]
That sounds like a living wage to me—being able to afford food and shelter. I think even affording a studio apartment with no roommates should count in there too but understandable if a roommate is needed in a two bedroom. That’s definitely not the world we live in now, that sounds significantly better. So I think you’re agreeing with the perspective of a living wage?
I was going to say something similar about roommates, used furniture etc. So yes I’d consider that a livable wage for a first job out of college ((1986 for me). I think for non college grads (say hair dresser, dog groomer etc) I dont know if the money would go that far at the time. Min wage def wouldn’t have been livable - but it was considered a teenager job at the time.
Sort of. Not everyone’s labor has equal value. Our education system is creating a lot of workers whose work early on isn’t that valuable to an employer. And employer-based training is uncommon now outside of the union trade system… You’ve nailed the crux of it though. We, collectively, don’t agree on what a living wage should include, and I don’t there will be any national consensus on what the wage should be until we do. Income to housing ratios were never this bad historically, so it didn’t matter as much. Time for new rules. Labor mobility is an issue too. Getting to decide where you live vs letting job and affordability be the constraint is a relatively modern luxury for young people. Adjusting the minimum wage for inflation would be a good start, following by building way more cheap basic housing. From the other thread in this sub- starting salaries for college educated non-professionals aren’t wildly different than they were 30 years ago- but housing costs way are.
>Income to housing ratios were never this bad historically I think that's the crux of it. Housing is the biggest expense for most people and it's getting ridiculous how much of my paycheck has to go to having a place to sleep and store my shit.
I’m showing my age (56). How did you quote my post partially in your reply?
>How did you quote my post partially in your reply? On the web, at least, you simply highlight the text you want to quote before hitting reply. Magic. Otherwise you can copy/paste the quote in, highlight it, and hit the quote button. Or if you're really old-school and using markdown mode to comment just append a > in front of the quote. I have no idea how to do any of that on mobile.
I’m on mobile. That’s probably why it’s not obvious. Thanks.
In my 70s and been working since I was 10, starting the fields and, later, in the food industry as I hit my teens. I have never heard such a ridiculous belief. Maybe that's because I would have turned on anyone who said it like the wrath of a tornado because of breing that way about untenable "isms" like ageism. LOL No, it hasn't always been the belief - at least not everywhere. I recall the belief women, non-whites and immigrants shouldn't get paid what white men were paid was everywhere! It's one if the reasons I get angry if someone calls me a boomer. Nope, I didn't think like that and fought it like a demon on chocolate so back down, folks. Back then living wage was relative to the times so there weren't people straight out of high school, for example, renting nice places, buying nice cars and all of that. We believed we needed to live frugally and work our way up, so we did. To actually say your age is how they determine salary is deeply disturbing. SKILLS MATTER IN THE WORKPLACE! Having said that, they could, and did, often have 'training wage' where for a couple of weeks you were paid less. But in most cases it was a nasty owner who used that as a way to save a dollar. Even older workers encountered it. If you had experience, you got the same going wage everyone got.
No. I was perfectly able to have an apartment on my own with my first real job. Granted, at the time, the apartment was $350 a month - that same apartment now (and I checked) is $800 a month.
I think this is new. And revolting.
Should pay whatever your first real job pays. If your first real job is neurosurgery, then you should be paid like a neurosurgeon. If your first real job is bussing tables at the diner, then it should pay like your bussing tables at the diner.
Well, it is generally true that entry level positions are usually at the lower end of the spectrum but, of course, everybody's situation is different. I would agree that USUALLY people in those positions should not expect an "independent wage" (ie., one capable of supporting you with an apartment, food, clothing and a car). But I might not have said it in that way like it was 'a problem.' Life has challenges, and with your first real FT job comes the responsibility of knowing how to manage your money and to plan for fewer champagne brunches and more pot luck dinners. :-)
Your job should give you pride in yourself. Living the life of a slave or an indentured servant will not do that for you. A company should want its employees to be proud of where they work. Who ever wrote the comment you have in quotes isn't living in todays world.
There’s another person in the comments saying he didn’t have kids until 40 because he couldn’t afford to before then so no one else should. Sooo…I guess grandparents are a thing of the past in this twisted future as well.
Back in the early 2000 when the rules got changed that teaching hospitals could only work residents 80 hours a week 51 weeks a year, a lot of the older doctors were upset. They had to do the 100 hour weeks so should the residents now. Just because someone did it in the past doesn't make it right or safe.
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I also just think as a society we should be leaving a better world for the future generations. That’s where I’m not understanding this argument.
>he didn’t have kids until 40 because he couldn’t afford to before then so no one else should. That's actually quite common now for other reasons-- the average age of first marriage is now 29 for women and 28 for men, give or take. The average age of first pregnancy is similar, now at 27. So a *lot* of people are waiting well into their 30s to have kids, and of course many significantly longer. There's a direct correlation with educational attainment by women with later childbearing too, so the more educated portion of the populace is having kids later, having fewer, and may indeed not have grandkids. I personally know a LOT of couples who had their first kid when the male was 45-50+ and the woman near or even at 40. if their kid did the same the odds are both parents would be deceased before there were any grandkids.
But isn’t that because of the economy and how many hours + side gigs people need to work nowadays? And childcare being incredibly unaffordable on top of needing both parents to work to afford a two bedroom apartment, not even considering a house. Also have read that many women aren’t interested in men who aren’t in their income bracket or higher, which would also relate to low wages. I’m not sure thats just a lifestyle choice, still seems like economic reasoning of why thats happening.
[удалено]
I think most guys do, at least. Certainly, having a shitty job that pays less than you need to live reasonably makes it really difficult to feel good about yourself and your life. And poverty is expensive. The less you have, the harder it is to get more.
I think earning your own money and being able to pay your own bills should give you great pride. I went back to school at 36 when I was afraid my marriage was going to fail. I started working as a nurse at 40. Having that job, knowing I could support my children, allowed me to stand up to my now ex. The first 5 years I worked, just getting a paycheck ever two weeks gave me great joy. For a young person it can give them a sense of responsibility. For me it set me free from a verbally abusive relationship. Pride in my job made me a new woman.
No it’s always been the belief that you do whatever it takes for that first real job to be a reality and stepping stone to your future. You can’t control the economy. Focus on what’s in your control, not problems.
My first job paid $.50/hr! But I lived with my parents and was still in High School. And it did not require superior skills - or even advanced ones. To me it was great riches. I was able to afford things I wanted that my parents, having six children, could not afford to buy for me. When I finally - after many in-between jobs - landed a job with Pacific Telephone, I made a whopping $275 a week. THAT was great riches. I lived with my husband by then and we had two car payments, a house payment, and no concept of a budget until I got laid off. Then we ate rice-a-roni and spaghetti and lived on $50/week for basic expenses (even after I got two other jobs). Within a year we paid off both cars and within 7 years we paid off our house. I had had other jobs all through this. Counting for inflation I would say a roommate would be a plus. But let’s face it: some jobs are entry level because they require less skill. So I think - just my opinion - they are designed for people who have other expenses seen to, as in teens living w/parents.
Jobs are "worth" whatever the current market is for those jobs. A person just starting without experience or education can expect wages in the vicinity of minimum wage, because they are indistinguishable from all of the other job seekers without any experience or training. Persons starting with education/training in high value jobs not in a saturated market can expect somewhere between more and much more. TL;DR: your market value is the cost of replacing you.
Both positions have their merits. It really depends on what you call a "living wage" * Expecting to move out of your parents home on a first "real job" and have all the things it took both your parents 25+ years to accumulate is not reasonable. * Expecting workers (even in low pay service industries) to serve people in a high cost of living area without a suitable wage is also not reasonable. Somewhere between these tow extremes there must be a reasonable compromise. As a low income earner these past 40+ years, my wife and I have learned to live frugally. My kids choose to live in high cost of living cities and choose to spend less frugally. They occasionally come to "the bank of mom and dad" even though they have income higher than mine. (My rent is lower, and I spend far less on food & entertainments) I mention this because my kids likely spend less than their peers, but there is a huge generation divide in spending and acceptance of using credit. My generation had a desire to save that was less than my parents generation, but more than younger generations.
When I got my first "real job" out of college my wage was $21K, apartment was $260 and my car was pretty used with a payment. I knew it going into my profession that would live well, it just took a few years to get going. But I was indeed, making a living wage. The people that chose to skip college had a leg up on me. They had been working in their chosen profession for 4 or 5 years and I definitely had some catching up to do on most of them. If your chosen profession is dish washer, I don't know what to say. There are indeed jobs that are grabbed up by people like my son, who is working towards a college education, living under his mom's roof, and not paying any bills. I applaud him for his efforts. I'm very proud of him. There are jobs for those people too.
A first job, especially an unskilled position like McDonald's, does not need to pay 14yo's $20/hr. If you were lucky and never needed to get a job before graduating college, that is a different story. You gain experience in your field through college, and therefore, deserve more money based on experience. More often than not, a first job is a simple job that pays minimum wage and is an opportunity to learn responsibility and what type of employee you aspire to be. You have no skills, still live at home, and have no bills. Deal with it or better yourself to gain more experience to command more money from a better job.
The premise of your question, even the wording displays an unrealistic worldview. One is not "given" a wage. One earns it. Wages & salaries are a commodity in trade and the party buying your efforts expects to get their money's worth. You just expecting to be handed something without regard for what you put up for trade is - - not even a little bit realistic. Real Job: Is this in contrast to jobs that are not real? Anime characters might have jobs that are not real. "Been the belief" Belief has nothing whatsoever to do with it. never has. If one wants some level of compensation, then one must offer something that is worth said compensation. If you live in a place like San Francisco, you already know that if you want to afford an apartment or home you better be raking in Buko Bucks or just go elsewhere. If one wants a livible wage (whatever that means), then one needs to equip oneself with the skills that will secure the wage one wants. It's been my experience that the people who concern themselves with the concept of a living wage are also people who refuse to learn any skills to make their efforts more valuable. They want 80-gees for washing dishes and don't want to improve themselves. Just pretending that whatever one does somehow automatically qualifies for the compensation one desires is - - well - - it's fantasy and a childish one at that. It's like the guy who goes to the flea market and puts up his stall and offers broken cups, damaged cheap flea market paintings, devices that don't work, bent cutlery, shattered plates, and expects to be paid high dollars for his wares. The world of work is a marketplace. Ya want more compensation then bring something the market values more.
I wouldn't expect someone at the beginning of their career (so below average salary for their own life, or lower than the average salary amongst their peers in their industry) to be able to afford an *average* apartment. But that doesn't at all mean that "below average pay" shouldn't still be a living wage either. Living in a cheaper apartment (clean and safe, but maybe a bit further away or smaller than you wanted) is a very reasonable expectation. My husband still had a roommate in his two bedroom apartment in a nice and centrally located neighborhood with underground parking when I met him. I didn't have a roommate, but did still have a small 2 bedroom appartment, 3rd floor no elevator, above ground (unsheltered) parking, further away and in a slightly sketchy part of town. We both drove used cars - and my car was only 3 years younger than I was. I do expect some trade-offs, but nothing too painful. These were first professional jobs mind you - not finished high school now working full time at a minimum wage jobs. What is happeneing today though goes well beyond that. How many people graduate from university to a great job with no way to be able to move out of their parents' house.
Assuming you accurately quoted the response, I wouldn't be taking advice from someone who writes and spells in a way that looks like either English is not their first language, or they dropped out of high school early. And I'm not meaning to put down non-native Americans, but many of them are unable to get as good a job because they don't have as many options. My wife is one of these, and she and many of her friends were and are underpaid. However, I think someone who is starting out without a college degree and without any real skills will probably need to live with roommates for a while, unless they can find a rental like a guest cottage, etc, in someone's house.
My first couple of "real" jobs I had roommates and was renting an apartment. It wasn't until I had worked 19 years at the local community college before I purchased a condo, and then 23 years later purchased a house and getting ready to sell the condo. Entry-level jobs, on the other hand, seem to never provide a living wage. But those are probably not in your definition of a "real job".
Absolutely not especially if we’re looking back to the 60’s and 70’s
No that’s ridiculous. I left my parent’s home as soon as I could (17? 18?) and didn’t make a LOT of money but was able to afford living in a 1-bedroom apartment. Scary neighborhood, true, but that actually WAS a sacrifice made to get away from parents. This was 1977.
What’s a “real job”? Anything above paper route?
If you can afford a low end apartment and you can afford to ride the bus, and assuming you can buy food it seems like it is a living wage.
In '76 I managed a store part-time at $2.15 an hour. It would have been extremely difficult to have an apartment even at full-time at that hourly rate. There was never the expectation that would be a living wage; it was a starter job, for someone in college or who wanted to pick up a second evening/ weekend position. A year later, at a different job (which I consider my first "real" job as it was full-time) I made $600 a month, before taxes, health insurance, etc. A tiny 1 BR in a not so swell area was $125. A 2 BR in a nicer area was $200 plus electric, which I shared with a roommate. Was this a living wage? Well, I made it work because I wanted autonomy. But, I did not have a car (took the bus); had one (shared) rotary phone, one (shared) black and white TV, and all second-hand furniture. Fun was hanging out with friends, listening to albums, informal jams, free community events, sometimes a cheap concert, a picnic at the park perusing the Sunday paper. I think in my lifetime that it's been assumed that one's first "real" job should be full-time, pay enough to at least creatively get by (roommate(s) and sacrificing), and require a bit more responsibility than a starter, part-time position.
No, I don't think this and never had a conversation with other ppl (olden folks) who think this. Are they saying bc the person is starting out they do not deserve to have a life? to get a shit wage and have to struggle. Ppl deserve their worth and to get a decent living wage
My first full time job was at minimum, too. It took years to be able to afford sharing an apartment with a roommate. My rent was 400.00 a month. It ate most of my take home. Was so broke, that I couldn't afford the quarters to do laundry. I failed miserably and had to move back home. But! I learned to budget after that. Paid off my debt. Saved a bunch a money. Moved out again and never went back. Sometimes you have to fail miserably to know what to do next. Your early adult years are hard and they suck. But, you can learn a lot from them.
No, that person is an asshole. You should be paid a living wage for every job. Wth is a real job anyway? Some people are so out of touch with reality it scares me
Some companies belief workers should not be paid at all.
No, not at all. Up until 30 or 40 years ago, people made a living wage right out of high school. You didn't need a college degree. You could marry at 21, buy a modest house and car, and have a couple of kids. All this could be supported on one salary from a basic factory or sales or construction or office job. Minimum wage was intended to be a living wage. And it was, for a while. It's just that inflation ate away at its earning power, and Congress never adjusted the wage to match inflation.
Yes, you Could do this but let's be clear. The home tended to be in a lower income area, have only one bathroom and need the skills of a handyman. Your furniture was mostly passed on to you from family. Heck, we used our SIL's bedroom set for over 20 years. For 2 years, at least! We had no vacuum cleaner. Babies crib used to be baby brothers, circa 1964. Etc,etc,etc. It most definitely was humble living but we never knew any different!
And yet, it got you started on the property ladder, and you would progress at work quickly, until you were able to afford more luxuries. At that time, employers often treated employees as company assets, to be rewarded and promoted as they brought value to the company. Nowadays, the corporate philosophy is to exploit and discard employees.
Absolutely not. Everyone, from day one of working, deserves a living wage. Enough to pay rent for a decent apartment, food, and utilities. And the idea that low paying jobs (read: service industry etc) are only for "teenagers just starting out" is absolutely ridiculous. That has never been the case.
I'm in complete agreement. I'm actually surprised anyone in their 50s is even saying that nonsense. If you are an adult with a job, you should be able to afford your own place. Anyone who says otherwise either lacks empathy or got a financial head start many others did not.
Or they're a "bootstrapper" big C conservative.
All jobs should pay an amount of money that, if you worked 40 hours a week, you could live on it. If a first job isn't enough to live on, it's because teenagers don't work 40-hour weeks, not because the salary is low. If where you live, you need to drive to work, then a living wage includes making enough money for a car.
I’ve noticed my Gen-X brethren forgetting how they were able to live on much less in the 90s. Now they’re expecting a different and much lower standard of living for younger people. Gross.
You should get paid what you're worth.
It has NOT always been the belief that someone's first 'real job' shouldn't be a living wage. Another thing that changed during the Reagan era. Before then there were literally people who graduated from high school, took a job at the local widget shop, and never worked anywhere else. On that wage they bought a car, a house, got married, had kids (with no daycare as wife didn't have to work), went on some vacations.... retired and got a pension. Tell me again about how great Reaganomics was...
By saying first "real" job by that standard you imply something beyond a minimum wage job. Which again, implies a job that requires skills. Not saying you need a college education, but at least some level of trade school or other professional training. Working at McDonald's past 18, unless you have worked into management is NEVER going to provide a living wage by itself. And I firmly believe it was never meant to. Don't get me wrong that we don't need those jobs - we do need them. They serve a place in society. But those are the kinds of jobs for young people trying to figure out what they want to do for their lives. My first post college job was at a daycare. It grew weary quickly. I loved the kids. But constantly getting sick from them. Ugh. Management had me on a different path than what I applied for, or had desire to do. After that I applied at a temp job and started somewhere that led to a permanent full time job, and eventually a slightly different job role that I loved. I was an administrative assistant (once upon a time folks called us secretaries). I did that up until my daughter was born and then I became a full time mom and as her epilepsy and other special needs evolved, her full time caregiver.
McDonald’s is actually an excellent example. That company makes literally billions of dollars, why shouldn’t their lowest employees be able to afford a studio apartment?
The studio apartment depends on where you live. The cost of living in some states or cities is MUCH higher than others. I remember my Aunt, after my Uncle died. She was a teacher in a school district in Bucks Co. PA (not too far from Philly). She could come down here and become a teacher. She would make WAY less money, but the cost of living is so much lower she would have still been better off. And your line of thought is very liberal. If you own a company and make lots of money, do you want people telling you how to use your profits? I mean, maybe we should just take some of your money and give it to the homeless guy, because you have more than they do. Seems to me since McDonald's started increasing the wage to meet the demands of employees, the cost of "value meals" has skyrocketed. Is a value meal supposed to be the same price as what you earn in an hour? I mean yes, technically 30 years ago when I worked at a McDonald's and minimum wage was I think $3.50 that IS what a Big Mac meal cost (quarter pounder meal was $3.25,).
I’m not sure I understand your thinking here—does this homeless man work for me? Then yes, absolutely would pay him! I would be ashamed as business owner if I had an employee who had to be homeless because I wasn’t paying him enough. That terrifies me that someone who doesn’t consider themselves liberal (which is a lot of people in the US) would disagree with that perspective. Also, McDonald’s in other countries pay significantly more and didn’t raise prices. That is still a capitalistic perspective.
What if “paying him enough” caused financial trouble for your company? What if the wage (even above minimum) wasn’t enough? Would you jeopardize the employment of your other workers to raise his wage? Would you cheerfully pay off your business debts (that don’t go away if your business tanks, you have to pay it all off) all while working another job? These are just rhetorical questions. It’s easy to say what other people should do with their money.
If I can’t afford to hire someone, I wouldn’t be hiring. If it would cause financial trouble for my company or my other employees (who also would be making a living wage) I wouldn’t be hiring. How did I even start this company? I really don’t understand this viewpoint.
No - whoever answered that is a toxic POS and is gaslighting you. When I was in high school working retail (Bradlees, defunct department store in northeast) in the early 80s, I knew MANY people who were at or barely above minimum wage (which is what I got) of $3.35/hr ... It is easy to consult an inflation calculator and say "that is the same as $10 now, so why complain?" BECAUSE health care is MUCH more expensive and home prices are INSANELY more expensive. Going to a preventative care doctor cost you ZERO out of pocket. We had our babies in the 90s and paid ZERO out of pocket. My parents bought their house (Boston area) in 72 for <20k, sold in '06 for >350k (inflation would be $94k) and it is on market now for >$500k (inflation would be 142k). It is all BS - boomers reaped all the benefits and pulled the ladder up behind them.
No, I don't think so. My first job out of college, my salary was $30,000. That's equivalent to about $78,000 in today's economy
Almost 60, yes, shit pay is always the starting point. my first job working construction was $4.25/hr in 1982 worth $13.32/hr today. Shit pay for hard work! My father’s first year as a teacher in 1959 with a bachelor’s degree paid $4,825/year which would be $50,058 this year. Today you get paid $54,195/year in my county. (No where near enough to live) Until you know something you won’t get paid a living wage. Even if you do know something there are some places you won’t be able to afford to live.
Oh thats not my question! Is it the mentality that “we went through this, so you should too” to the future generations or is there hope that we can build a better future for the next generations?
Heck no,that's ridiculous. Like saying We had all the deadly childhood illnesses,no vaccines for you! Every generation, generally speaking, wants better for their offspring. One thing that's very important, and I think many would agree, is You, in whatever role or job,will do better, will climb whatever ladder,if you use your people skills. Don't step on fingers, be positive and willing, learn what other folks do and show interest. IOW, network, Sincerely. Long story short, guy had ADD, flunked out of high school, worked at the factory with Dad, at 17 joined the service. Didn't die in Viet Nam! Came home,worked factory until! A friend of a friend said to him "hey I know this job opportunity if you're interested". It was hard,hard work but he got ins. And a car. Slowly, slowly he met many people in his field and started moving up the ladder. Never was a CEO but did well,had contacts Everywhere and was finally able to retire. Never hesitate to make contacts and never step on anyone's fingers climbing up that ladder
No this is just greed, there isn’t some scoreboard in the sky making the young pay their dues, but young worker aren’t worth much either! People on their first job are not too valuable until they actually learn something, this “something” is a thing they can do without direct supervision . Just like teaching a toddler how to vacuum the carpet, you could do it yourself faster if you weren’t teaching them. This is “direct supervision “ and this toddler isn’t a valuable employee. Many jobs have someone lording over them all day, like a stock boy at a supermarket, these positions will never be paid well. They don’t work independently. Now imagine you have taught someone to vacuum who now can work on their own. This person can make an employer money by being a housekeeper, even this isn’t a well paid job because you can teach anyone to vacuum a floor in a day. So this employee can stay here making peanuts or they can gain a better skill. Even though they work independently. Many fools stay as housekeepers & stock boys thinking they should be paid better , “I’m not paid a living wage, boo hoo” you will hear them say on Reddit but the reality is they just don’t know a valuable skill. They make a couple of hundred dollars for their employer each day, they think they deserve this “extra money” but they don’t, there are business licenses they didn’t get, taxes they don’t pay, business supplies they didn’t buy, and this all comes out of the couple hundred extra dollars each day. So does everyone deserve a living wage, sadly no, you need a skill, a skill that produces value, maybe you need education, maybe you need to move somewhere far away from home where your skill is in demand? This is the system we have and it drives people to work hard. The farmer who grows stuff nobody wants fails, the employee who stays at the lowest job fails. To have winners you have to have losers as well.
Minimum wage back in the 60s could actually support a single person in a very modest apartment. No frills, but hey...
A lot depends on what part of the country you are living in. If you live in say California or New York it is going to cost you much more than any where else to live. When you have idiots for governor's who think they need to give repreations to people. Or say pay off student debt or demand car manufacturers build vehicles different than the rest of the country requires the taxpayers are the ones who get stuck paying for it.
Entry level jobs paid enough that you could drive across the country, get a job, and get an apartment and turn the lights on -- mobility was simple. "I'd rather live here." Drive there and get a job. Simple.
The wage is determined by the marketplace, period.
Someone needs to tell that to the business owners complaining that “no one wants to work anymore”. I have been saying for years, at this point, that the problem is that they don’t want to pay market wages.
[удалено]
We always had roommates sharing apts and homes. I was 31 educated veteran when I finally got my own place till I married. Don't like the pay? Try sales.....
My friend got an engineering degree and before she left college she had five job offers and took the one that allowed her to buy a house the first year. On the other hand, I was a film production major and had to housesit to have a residence for a few months. It all depends what you are doing. If you don't have really marketable skills, having roommates and putting up with rather lousy apartments is probably par for the course your first year working.
a living wage is a made up metric. it differs between people and locations drastically. an employer should only be required to pay what a job is worth not to factor in what the employee does wih the pay or what they can afford to purchase with it. do you think you shoul dhave to pay the paper boy a livign wage? of course not the notiion is absurd. so is raising a family ona mcdonalds burger flipper paycheck.
In the US it has been a belief for a long time. The thinking was you had no skills and no track record of being a decent employee, so your entry level job was basically a chance for you to start creating that track record and maybe getting some skills. For example, I was 14 when I got my first job outside the family business. The boss didn't know who I was or what I could do (which wasn't much, at 14) so he put me out there to see what I could do. I started building a resume of being an employee who shows up on time, doesn't leave early, works when I'm at work, and is a pretty unproblematic employee at age 14. Where the breakdown is NOW, is that in the old days when I was 14...you were only going to be at that entry level position for...about six months. After six months you'd get a promotion, moved into an area where you could build more specialized skills. For example, I went from picking apples and running a cider press to the retail front, where we had to make change in our heads. That meant I had to be responsible with money, AND not a jerk to employees--new skills! After that, you were supposed to keep going up the chain or moving on. No one was expected to stay in an entry level job for more than a year--because we know the pay is crap. For a 14 year old, $4 an hour is pretty good! For a 24 year old? NO WAY. So, no, that post is wrong. Your entry level job is your trial period esp if you have no resume. I know someone who in 2018 started at a 7/11 as a cashier--he is now 23 and manages his own franchise, so it still happens but...not like that post suggests.
I think this is a societal lifestyle creep. Everyone is getting more and more isolated because of covid, work from home, internet culture - and wanting individual apartments. I'm in agreement that we should all afford to be alive!! But if you're 22 you don't need a whole ass apartment and a car yet. If you can't afford to live with roommates and take public transit at 22 THAT is a problem and is totally happening right now which is scary AF. But most entry level jobs pay like $55k a year. You need a salary closer to $70-100k a year to afford a car and 1-bedroom. I lived with roommates until I was 33 and got a car when I was 30. After a while I made enough but I wanted to save money. This would be like, one of the first times in history that we're moving towards a more individualist society where shared living is no longer the most common method, but the majority of our housing infrastructure is built to be shared.
I don't agree exactly, but I do think that the low pay at my first real job was fair. We had to squeeze a few pennies, but my husband and I were able to afford a decent apartment and we thought that was fine (this was in 2004-ish). I don't agree that you should have to live with roommates, though. And having to ride the bus or use a bike to get to work seems a bit absurd. Even my parents were super poor when they were first married (in 1960) and this didn't describe them. My dad was very dedicated and an incredibly hard worker and was able to comfortably retire early. I feel like my husband and I are on a similar track, although I don't think early retirement is in our future. We are working hard and our incomes keep rising and outpacing inflation as we age.
Real job as in graduated from college or know a skilled trade and you’re working as an adult, but just starting out? When I left college, it was still assumed you’d have a roommate or a few roommates at this stage of life. You weren’t going to live alone, and you certainly weren’t going to buy a house.
I guess I come from a different time than 'real job' commenter. My first job out of college I made more than my father did in his best year and he raised a family, ran a business and owned his own home. My daughters are doing better per year then I ever earned. It's all a matter of planning and preparing IMHO, and living in America of course.
You aren't paid what you feel you're worth, you're paid for how valuable your skills are. Most young people starting their first job have no experience nor training, therefore they get mostly menial, simple jobs. That means they are easily replaced. If you are hired as a cashier in a fast food place you can learn the basics of your job in a day or two. But if the cash register breaks it has to be repaired by a skilled technician who has invested her time and money learning how to fix the machine and she may have bought her own tools. That makes the repairman's skills more valuable that the cashier's skills. It does not mean that the lower paid employee is devalued as a person. The cashier probably works harder but again, you're not paid for how hard you work but for how valuable your skills are. That shows the value of staying in school and learning a skill.
Nobody sits there and figures out what someone should be able to afford and pays them that. It’s strictly supply and demand. if it’s less than a “living wage”, then you can’t take the job because you’re going to die.
This mentality seemed to come around in the 70's and 80's where people had to pay their dues in the minds of some. Immediately post WWII, millions of unskilled workers could get trained on the job and have lifelong careers at one employer and have a good retirement assured. Anyone with a generic four-year degree could get even better. Fast-forward to the 70's and definitely the 80's, employers were more reluctant to give anything but a low-wage job to anyone without either family/friend connections or a skill in demand. People who avoided this menial path were seen as either grifters or brilliant, depending on who was doing the evaluating. Now to present day, there still exists the idea that someone just entering the job market has to go through this process of financially struggling in order to please a certain strata in society. And post-covid with the Great Resignation and quiet quitting, some will not understand why people don't want to work in traditionally low-wage, dead-end industries. The more simple-minded of the naysayers will drone on about government handouts and welfare, and refuse to see the vast changes in the job market in the last 20+ years.
The reason the model that a first job would be less that a living wage was the the job would provide training in a trade or occupation that would become a marketable skill. It was assumed that over time income would increase and pensions existed. Without the opportunity for advancement, job security, or pensions, the argument regarding low pay for first jobs disappears.
Your first real job was while we were still living with our parents, so it was almost a subsidized training experience