> Food isn't optional. Getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food doesn't magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job.
Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job.
> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.
> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*
>Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job.
That makes zero sense from an accounting point of view.
>> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.
>> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*
1. I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment.
2. you seem to be fixated on "expenses" meaning living expenses (eg. rent, food, clothing, etc.), whereas I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport). This was pointed out several comments ago.
> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*
> I'm not sure how you're getting "minimum wage is a livable wage" from that comment.
The comment you replied to stated:
> There are a lot of jobs where your net pay is below zero, long term, when you factor in the external costs associated with working, such as needing transportation.
Transportation is just a single one of those costs. Nobody in their right mind is going to get a job that they recognize won't pay for their expenses and many people consider more expenses than just transportation.
> I was only talking about expenses related to getting the job (eg. transport).
That wasn't clear and is no doubt where our discussion went astray
>many people consider more expenses than just transportation.
You (and other people) seem to think that food, housing, and healthcare is an expense in getting a job, but that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view. This is trivially proven with a thought experiment: let's say you were unemployed and had $2000/month in "required" expenses, and a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"? Of course not, even though you're still losing money from an overall cashflow perspective, taking the job still provides you a +$1000 improvement to your financial situation[2].
[1] although I suppose you would need less calories if you didn't work, but I think that's safe to ignore
[2] for simplicity we can ignore government subsidies that gets cut off when you exceed a certain amount of income, or unemployment.
> that makes zero sense from an accounting point of view
Well the world doesn't work like your armchair accounting.
> a job offered you $1000/month. Are you going to turn down that job because it "won't pay for my expenses"?
$1000/month is _less_ than that minimum wage. So I'll assume it's indeed a part time job.
Taking that job means 4 hours less time each day looking for a better job because you're busy with this part time one. Not only 4 hours less for work, but another 1 or 2 hours each day because now you're driving to and from that job. So 6 hours less each day. That's an expense.
Now that you're working it also means being less eligible for any government assistance. $1000/month to work 4 hours/day while taking $800 less government assistance comes out to... a net of $200/month. For 4 hours/day of work and an additional 2 hours/day for transportation.
If you look at the raw money, you're making more money. Homelessness is on the horizon and inching ever closer even if it's approaching slower.
Are those 6 hours to you really worth your time when you could have spent those 6 hours trying to find an even better job?
And when you do reach homelessness, is that $1000/month job going to continue employing you?
I think that's the dilemma that the commenter at the start of this thread posits. Jobs are "available" but they're not sustainable. And people are turning down $18/hr stressful part-time jobs because they can't afford them.
>Well the world doesn't work like your armchair accounting.
ah yes, just slap "armchair" in front of something to invalidate someone's position.
>Taking that job means 4 hours less time each day looking for a better job because you're busy with this part time one
>Are those 6 hours to you really worth your time when you could have spent those 6 hours trying to find an even better job?
The money you "earn" searching for a job is highly variable, and I don't see any attempts at quantifying it. If you were recently employed for $4000/month, your time might very well be spent looking for a job rather than taking the next min. wage job, but if you were unemployed for 6+ months and your previous job only barely paid better than minimum wage, the ROI is probably not there.
>Not only 4 hours less for work, but another 1 or 2 hours each day because now you're driving to and from that job. So 6 hours less each day.
Aren't part time jobs closer to "8 hours a shift but you come a few times a week" rather than "4 hours a shift but you come in 5 days a week"?.
>Now that you're working it also means being less eligible for any government assistance. $1000/month to work 4 hours/day while taking $800 less government assistance comes out to... a net of $200/month. For 4 hours/day of work and an additional 2 hours/day for transportation.
Thank you, that's the type of numbers I was looking for in the original comment.
>And when you do reach homelessness, is that $1000/month job going to continue employing you?
Would you rather be on the streets in 10 months or 5 months? The choice seems clear.
To me it looks like you two are talking past each other. In fact, I think you're both right. gruez point can be summarized as "if you're having a minimum wage job, your loss at the end of the month is smaller compared to having no income at all" [0], which is a possible interpretation of the comment that sparked this thread [1]. This is also the reason he does not account for food, while you do. Your (inetknght's) point is that "with a minimum wage job, you'll make a loss at the end of the month". As far as I read it, gruez actually doesn't try to make the point that a minimum wage job is sustainable, so there's no contradiction.
[0] Compared to, for example, driving for Uber, where at the end of the month the cost for car+fuel+maintenance might cost you more than you earned, increasing your net loss.
> There are a lot of jobs where your net pay is below zero, long term, when you factor in the external costs associated with working, such as needing transportation.
> That makes zero sense from an accounting point of view.
If your point of view prevents you from understanding that people need shelter, food, and clothing in order to not die, and must be alive in order to work, then your point of view might not be sufficient.
Most people aren't able to get food without money obtained from a job. So unless your food is provided elsewhere then getting a job that pays you money which you spend on food does magically make the cost of food a cost of getting the job.
> I made no such statement. Please point out where you think I made that statement.
> $7.25 8 hours = $58. It's hard to imagine expenses adding up anywhere close to $58/day*