Dunkin' Donuts Worker's Death Reveals The True Cost Of Our Low-Wage, Part-Time Economy

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I keep seeing the generic point that if she only was paid a living wage.... So I ask what job do you consider a job that should have a living wage associated with it? Should flipping burgers at Burger King pay enough to support a family of four? Should it even fully support one person to live independently, I'm 54 and I didn't even see that type of job until I was in my 30s, much less a starter type job.

A starter job should pay a wage that allows one person to support themselves with the basics and enough money to go out on a date once a week. Should it pay enough to support a family of 4? No of course not, that would be a bit ridiculous. The economics of it are pretty simple really. You can't address the social safety nets until you fix the root of the problem and that starts at baseline wages and poorly structured trade policies. You will always have those that simply choose to skate by on just enough to survive, let them do just that. The rest of the country will do what they need to to reach their own personal level of comfort.

At your age you should know better. You should know that as children we were told that you work hard do your best and you will be rewarded for it. The American people aren't asking for that which they haven't already earned the following graphs prove it.



They aren't the ones with the entitlement philosophy, the people that haven't given them their due are.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Tangerine
Everyone who works should be paid a living wage period. That is a wage that will be sufficient to provide that worker with adequate food, shelter, and medical care.

America is about the only country that expects everyone to be able to live independently of each other, why is that? Independent living takes time to build the skills needed to earn that extra money needed. No one thinks about synergy when two or more work together for a common goal. I think two people can do what you are talking about if they pool their resources and work together, but add in more not working, or one person trying to make a living on a startup job, or add a family into the mix on minimum wage and it is not enough.

I question whether most corporate jobs are more than minimum wage. Burger King, which you mentioned, is corporate. Those fast food restaurants are corporate. Most of the service industry is corporate. Look at the big employers in your city that pay minimum wage. Most are corporate.

Burger King is a franchise and the one you see in your area, some person owns it, needs to make a living with it, needs to shoulder all the responsibility to make it successful.

Please name some of these big employers and you will find that it is most likely a franchise owned by some person trying to make a living too.

Most of what you said is patently false.

A livable wage is not to much to ask when you have a large faction of this country complaining about social programs. You can't have it both ways. If you aren't going to make businesses pay wages that can keep people out of the safety net, then you (general, not personal) really can't complain about social programs that keep these people from being an even bigger drain on society. Secondly, and probably more importantly, is the fact that only so many people are going to be able to get the better jobs you speak of. SOMEBODY has to flip the burgers and clean the toilets in this society. That shouldn't relegate those people to not being able to afford the basics in life.

As to you statement about Burger King.....they are indeed a corporate company. Each franchisee pays for the licensing right to use the name, and they are bound to adhere to basic company policies. National promotions are required to be run, and only a few of the menu choices or pricing options are really in the control of the owners of each individual restaurant. The only thing that franchising does is prevent Burger King as a company from spending the money to open stores. They leave that to people who want to make a buck by getting on board with a company that already has brand recognition and a proven track record.

Most of the minimum wage (or nominally higher) job providers in most towns are NOT small businesses. Walmart, McDonalds, Burger King and the like are far larger providers of jobs than any Mom and Pop stores are going to be. They all also tend to pay minimum wage or slightly higher.

This really isn't this hard....the cost of living has gone up far faster than the rate of payroll increase over the last 30 years. That means that people are working harder to bring home "less" than they used to.

originally posted by: bullseyelqcs

A livable wage is not to much to ask when you have a large faction of this country complaining about social programs. You can't have it both ways. If you aren't going to make businesses pay wages that can keep people out of the safety net, then you (general, not personal) really can't complain about social programs that keep these people from being an even bigger drain on society.

I guess my point is I had roommates until I was about 30ish, and that was in the 80s. So just what are we talking about when we suggest a livable wage? 700 rent, 300 food, 400 car/gas, 200 other? That is about 1800 bucks a month or 11 bucks an hour, but if you had a roommate that expense would be about 1200 bucks a month sharing, or 8 bucks an hour rounded up. That all is pretty close to minimum in many areas.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, is the fact that only so many people are going to be able to get the better jobs you speak of. SOMEBODY has to flip the burgers and clean the toilets in this society. That shouldn't relegate those people to not being able to afford the basics in life.

Money buys freedoms and time, period. You are suggesting that a good number of workers will max out their living capabilities at cleaning toilets, and I'm sure that is true for a small percentage of workers. What this means is they need to live within their means, and that might mean, no kids, no independent living, no vacations etc. A life of cheap apartments with a roommate... Sucks, I know, but if that is ones true capability then there isn't much anyone can do. The problem is the vast majority are where they are at due to poor life choices and you want to fix that with a higher minimum wage. I agree that minimum should be raised due to the failure of our government that has inflated the cost of living these last 6 years to the point minimum is now too low.

As to you statement about Burger King.....they are indeed a corporate company. Each franchisee pays for the licensing right to use the name, and they are bound to adhere to basic company policies. National promotions are required to be run, and only a few of the menu choices or pricing options are really in the control of the owners of each individual restaurant. The only thing that franchising does is prevent Burger King as a company from spending the money to open stores. They leave that to people who want to make a buck by getting on board with a company that already has brand recognition and a proven track record.
Most of the minimum wage (or nominally higher) job providers in most towns are NOT small businesses. Walmart, McDonalds, Burger King and the like are far larger providers of jobs than any Mom and Pop stores are going to be. They all also tend to pay minimum wage or slightly higher.

Yes, evil WalMart... So how can my neighbor keep his Quiznos open if he pays lets say a minimum of 15 bucks an hour. The magic number is about 33% gross goes into wages. More and the company fails, less and the company is ripping off the employees.

A good place to watch is Seattle that raised their minimum to 15 bucks an hour over a few years, we will see how that experiment works.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Tangerine
I keep seeing the generic point that if she only was paid a living wage.... So I ask what job do you consider a job that should have a living wage associated with it? Should flipping burgers at Burger King pay enough to support a family of four? Should it even fully support one person to live independently, I'm 54 and I didn't even see that type of job until I was in my 30s, much less a starter type job.

Anyone who is working should be able to afford food, shelter, and medical coverage without needing outside assistance. If we as a society aren't willing to pay enough for a job for that person to afford the very basics of life, is that a job that we as a society really need to have done?

There are many who seem to just work harder to get ahead and not smarter, working harder never progresses you. I make a hell of a lot more than my neighbor who owns and operates a Quiznos, and he pays what he can afford. Everyone says corporate is driving this, but most corporate jobs are well above minimum wage. At Boeing the average is about 80k or better per year, as example. So most minimum wage jobs are paid by private businesses and not corporate. My neighbor would need to close his doors if he had to pay more.

This isn't true. It's accurate to say that if one specific business has to pay more that it will be forced to close but when every business pays more the employees have more to spend, especially those on the bottom of the income ladder who spend the vast majority of their income rather than save it. This increased spending throughout the economy ends up bringing additional income to the business owner that has to pay more. Everyone ends up with more in the end.

Basically what we're seeing here is a real life application of a classic game theory problem. If all businesses agreed to pay X, they could all afford to pay X. However one business realizes people will still work at X-1 pay, then someone else pays X-2, and so on. In the end all of these little reductions mean that enough money isn't flowing through the system anymore for anyone to pay X in the first place. On top of that you have the employees who agree to work for X, but then a new person competes for the same job and offers X-1 to get it. Someone else later comes along and offers X-2. This happens when there aren't enough jobs to go around, demand for the jobs goes up while supply goes down so people take worse and worse deals in order to have that job.

This is why we need to step in with minimum wage laws. If we had enough jobs for everyone to be able to work supply/demand could take care of these issues.

The problem is, as beezzer has pointed out, is there are less good wage jobs and more poor wage jobs in America than in the past. Sales and service will always pay poorly, so we need the jobs that requires some skill to return back to our soil.

This is why I'm in favor of telling corporations that they must provide 1 job in the US for every $x in revenue they generate here. If a company brings in $1 billion from the American market I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they're providing us with X-thousand jobs in exchange.

However, by definition someone is going to be earning lets say the bottom 10% of wages. It will be 10% of the population even. As a society it's our job to ensure those wages are livable. In the past even a fast food job could pay for a small house, a car, or a family, and while that happened the economy did better than ever. Today that's not the case.

These quotes were attributed to me. I didn't write any of them. I'm not quite sure how this error happened.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Tangerine



Burger King is a franchise and the one you see in your area, some person owns it, needs to make a living with it, needs to shoulder all the responsibility to make it successful.

Please name some of these big employers and you will find that it is most likely a franchise owned by some person trying to make a living too.

It takes an investment of $300,000 to $2.8 million with a $500,000 cash liquidity requirement to buy a Burger King franchise.

its kind of insane how hard some people who have no specific skills have to work to live.

4 jobs and living out of a car? thats just not fair. they put so many hours in and get so little.

a reply to: Tangerine

I have slept in my car while working 2 part time jobs and going to school full time.. sometimes it was in the college parking garage, sometimes outside of whatever girls house or apartment I met that night. I have done it many times.. I did it when I shared housing... hell I even did it when I had my own apartment.

Still havent died of asphyxiation.... yet... but now I am married with 4 kids.. so I guess the next time I sleep in one of our cars will be when I am in the dog house.

originally posted by: bullseyelqcs

originally posted by: kdyam

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: kdyam

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: kdyam

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm replying to my own post to point out that it's obvious that some people don't "get" the point of the news story. I don't think it's because they're stupid but, rather, because their brains are wired differently. No amount of explanation/education/social influence will likely change this.

I agree! You prove your own case in point with your posts quite successfully. You seem to be unable to read between the lines of the sensationalism in the media.. or lack the common sense to break down the matter and its implications.

Some people just don't get it... this lady obviously didn't.

You hook a plow to horse and they will pull it until they are dead.. Hook a plow to a human and they will pull it until they no longer want to... then they will find something more accommodating to their needs to perform....

A human with the mentality of a horse... while not uncommon... will never learn how to change their lives and just keep pulling..

The only reason a horse would pull a plow until dead is because a horse can't remove the plow. I can't wait to hear your ideas about how this woman could have gotten herself out of her situation. Because neither of us know her circumstances prior to her finding herself with four part-time jobs and sleeping in her car, start there.

Horses have been getting out or traces and harnesses since they were domesticated... its the training that keeps them in .... and their low intelligence.

So if this lady had one job that she worked at for 100 hours a week and died on her way to work in a car accident did her job kill her then too? Or was it the accident she was involved in that killed her?

It's like being in a hair splitting contest with a blind man.

Thank you for proving my point. You don't get it. You never will.

I do get it... I have worked multiple jobs and went to school full time in the past.. getting very little and sometimes no sleep.

What I haven't done is fall asleep in my car with a gas can spewing fumes in the back and died of asphyxiation... that is what this is all about. She didn't die because she had four jobs.. she died from asphyxiation and people like you are getting up in arms about her having four jobs... missing the point of her death entirely... this is media sensationalism at it's finest and sheep like you buy it hook line and sinker. WAKE UP!! Her jobs didn't kill her, a stupid and most likely uneducated decision did.

I understand your point, but think it needs to be refocused a little.

If the story in question had a minor change to it, I seriously doubt you would feel the same way about it. If she hadn't died from asphyxiation and had instead fallen asleep on the way from one job to the next, it would be the same referendum on low wage jobs as it right now, but we wouldn't be discussing her status as educated or uneducated.

I'm happy that you managed not to succumb to your lack of sleep and overworked status to be with us today to carry on this discussion....but it is more a result of you being lucky than how educated you may or may not have been at the time. EVERYONE finds themselves tired behind the wheel at one time or another. The difference between those that live and those that die is pretty indiscriminant.

I have almost fallen asleep behind the wheel after having 2 weeks vacation... I fail to see how that is relevant to the post.

When are people going to wake up and see this lady didn't die because of how many jobs she had?

She died because of a bad choice on her part of keeping an unsecured gas can in her car.

originally posted by: kdyam
a reply to: Tangerine

I have slept in my car while working 2 part time jobs and going to school full time.. sometimes it was in the college parking garage, sometimes outside of whatever girls house or apartment I met that night. I have done it many times.. I did it when I shared housing... hell I even did it when I had my own apartment.

Still havent died of asphyxiation.... yet... but now I am married with 4 kids.. so I guess the next time I sleep in one of our cars will be when I am in the dog house.

what exactly is your point ? you are so much better and smarter than this woman /?

a reply to: Xtrozero

unfortunately here in america that roommate has a good chance of being someone from the opposite sex
after all if you are a guy who would you rather have another guy who is thowing his clothes all over the place and bringing you home a mc donalds burger for supper or would you rather have a gal who will do you laundry and knows how to cook?
if you are a gal well do you want another gal so you can both stand and scream for help because that spider crossed your path or do you want a guy with the guts to smush that spider.
I know I am being overly stereotypical but it seems to me that what you are suggesting will lead to something that isn't needed at all by the minimum wage earner---kids!!
in wedlock out of wedlock doesn't matter because once they enter the picture well that family of three will be even worse off because now there will be three trying to live on the income of one because even if they both keep their minimum wage jobs the childcare for the child will more than eat up one of the paychecks!
we allowed our kids to stay with us as long as we could for this reason! but got to tell ya I believe that part of that transition from child to adult can only be achieved through a time of living independently.
we seem to be taking that away from our children in so many ways
from feeling that we have to have our eyes on them every minute of the day constantly directing their actions not alowing them to make mistakes to not allowing them the experience of living on their own... there's plenty of mistakes that can be made and learned from
and some things can only be learned if one gives them the chance.

and the sad fact of the matter is that at one time those minimum wage jobs could at least support a person with the bare necessities.
and for an eyeopener go through your newspaper and look at the jobs offered
how many can you find that wants years of experience while offering near minimum wage that wouldn't support a family?

if we want a healthy workforce we need to ensure that the workforce has the funds necessary to stay healthy
and if we want a workforce in the future we need to ensure that their wages will grow to the point where they can afford that family
what we seem to have difficulty with is just how should this be done
who should be providing them with the funds? how should those funds be obtained?
I think that we all would agree that the best method for this would be through employment wouldn't we?
well at the moment more and more employees are using two methods employment subsidized by gov't benefits
and well it seems that our gov't is solving the lack of future employees through unchecked immigration

so your neighbor owns a Quiznos?? does he have the freedom to change the pay structure? or does every quiznos pay their employees the same wage? what percentage of his profits goes to quiznos? what I am wondering was weather his desire for a brand that is recognized worth the amount of control the corp claims as theirs...
my son works in a franchise he has a pretty good boss who thinks enough of his work that he would drive across the city to give him a ride to work if the car isn't running but he can't give him a raise so the kid can get a decent car!
I see this as kind of the corporate world tying one hand behind the back of the franchise owners and managers
ya they might own the franchise but their ability to manage it properly could be hindered quite a bit

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Money buys freedoms and time, period. You are suggesting that a good number of workers will max out their living capabilities at cleaning toilets, and I'm sure that is true for a small percentage of workers. What this means is they need to live within their means, and that might mean, no kids, no independent living, no vacations etc. A life of cheap apartments with a roommate... Sucks, I know, but if that is ones true capability then there isn't much anyone can do.

You, and many others, are just totally missing the point. All of these 'low-skill' jobs HAVE TO be done. Point blank. Without all these fast food workers, retail workers, janitors, etc, our society doesn't function. If our entire society consisted of geniuses, all of those roles would still have to be filled. To say that the people who do these things do not deserve a living wage, is to say that a very large segment of the population shouldn't really be able to get by on the money they make. And this is guaranteed to be the case absolutely no matter what, because regardless of everyone's talents and intelligence, there HAS TO BE people who do those things. And you're saying those people, who must exist and must do those jobs regardless, should not be able to get by on the money they earn from those necessary jobs.

a reply to: TheJourney
I'm sure that within 20 years most of these jobs will be done by machines.

a reply to: Xaphan


but the machines will cost x amount of money to maintain and keep operating
the low skilled worker will cost the company x-$400 dollars to con them into coming to work every day and the gov't will pay the rest to maintain them.
so those new machines will never be put into work since they are too costly..

or at least I think it would end up something like that instead..

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero

unfortunately here in america that roommate has a good chance of being someone from the opposite sex
after all if you are a guy who would you rather have another guy who is thowing his clothes all over the place and bringing you home a mc donalds burger for supper or would you rather have a gal who will do you laundry and knows how to cook?
if you are a gal well do you want another gal so you can both stand and scream for help because that spider crossed your path or do you want a guy with the guts to smush that spider.
...
but got to tell ya I believe that part of that transition from child to adult can only be achieved through a time of living independently.
we seem to be taking that away from our children in so many ways

Perhaps part of your responsibility as a parent is to drop the offensive stereotypes so that your children grow up not perpetuating them.

a reply to: Tangerine
why?? when I see such stereotypes being displayed as fact so often on ATS??
and my kids are grown.

the point I made was plain and simple so instead attack me on something that I used to just get the point across instead of the actual point!
got it!

if you can't see where these low wages is causing the very problems that so many conservative rights gripe about constantly then I am willing to bet that you don't want to!

originally posted by: kdyam

originally posted by: bullseyelqcs

originally posted by: kdyam

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: kdyam

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: kdyam

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm replying to my own post to point out that it's obvious that some people don't "get" the point of the news story. I don't think it's because they're stupid but, rather, because their brains are wired differently. No amount of explanation/education/social influence will likely change this.

I agree! You prove your own case in point with your posts quite successfully. You seem to be unable to read between the lines of the sensationalism in the media.. or lack the common sense to break down the matter and its implications.

Some people just don't get it... this lady obviously didn't.

You hook a plow to horse and they will pull it until they are dead.. Hook a plow to a human and they will pull it until they no longer want to... then they will find something more accommodating to their needs to perform....

A human with the mentality of a horse... while not uncommon... will never learn how to change their lives and just keep pulling..

The only reason a horse would pull a plow until dead is because a horse can't remove the plow. I can't wait to hear your ideas about how this woman could have gotten herself out of her situation. Because neither of us know her circumstances prior to her finding herself with four part-time jobs and sleeping in her car, start there.

Horses have been getting out or traces and harnesses since they were domesticated... its the training that keeps them in .... and their low intelligence.

So if this lady had one job that she worked at for 100 hours a week and died on her way to work in a car accident did her job kill her then too? Or was it the accident she was involved in that killed her?

It's like being in a hair splitting contest with a blind man.

Thank you for proving my point. You don't get it. You never will.

I do get it... I have worked multiple jobs and went to school full time in the past.. getting very little and sometimes no sleep.

What I haven't done is fall asleep in my car with a gas can spewing fumes in the back and died of asphyxiation... that is what this is all about. She didn't die because she had four jobs.. she died from asphyxiation and people like you are getting up in arms about her having four jobs... missing the point of her death entirely... this is media sensationalism at it's finest and sheep like you buy it hook line and sinker. WAKE UP!! Her jobs didn't kill her, a stupid and most likely uneducated decision did.

I understand your point, but think it needs to be refocused a little.

If the story in question had a minor change to it, I seriously doubt you would feel the same way about it. If she hadn't died from asphyxiation and had instead fallen asleep on the way from one job to the next, it would be the same referendum on low wage jobs as it right now, but we wouldn't be discussing her status as educated or uneducated.

I'm happy that you managed not to succumb to your lack of sleep and overworked status to be with us today to carry on this discussion....but it is more a result of you being lucky than how educated you may or may not have been at the time. EVERYONE finds themselves tired behind the wheel at one time or another. The difference between those that live and those that die is pretty indiscriminant.

I have almost fallen asleep behind the wheel after having 2 weeks vacation... I fail to see how that is relevant to the post.

When are people going to wake up and see this lady didn't die because of how many jobs she had?

She died because of a bad choice on her part of keeping an unsecured gas can in her car.

It was relevant because if she hadn't died from something you consider unintelligent yet still a symptom of her circumstances, it becomes much more difficult to avoid placing at least some of the blame on those very circumstances.

I agree....she didn't directly die because of how many jobs she had. She died due to a combination of circumstances, one of those circumstances being that she was pressed for time due to having 4 jobs. In her haste to get to and from each of her 4 jobs, she felt the need to carry an unsecured gas can in the car.

All of those things contributed to her death.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: bullseyelqcs

A livable wage is not to much to ask when you have a large faction of this country complaining about social programs. You can't have it both ways. If you aren't going to make businesses pay wages that can keep people out of the safety net, then you (general, not personal) really can't complain about social programs that keep these people from being an even bigger drain on society.

I guess my point is I had roommates until I was about 30ish, and that was in the 80s. So just what are we talking about when we suggest a livable wage? 700 rent, 300 food, 400 car/gas, 200 other? That is about 1800 bucks a month or 11 bucks an hour, but if you had a roommate that expense would be about 1200 bucks a month sharing, or 8 bucks an hour rounded up. That all is pretty close to minimum in many areas.

A person should be able to afford a place to live independently if they should choose to. There are apartments in my town that go for 450 that are in areas that don't make even some criminals nervous. You don't inherently need a vehicle, since most cities have public transportation. Eating is obviously a must, but filet and lobster are not. Health care and the like should also be affordable on a working wage. The ability to have any of those things should not be tethered to the notion that two people in a crappy situation should be forced to cohabitate simply because they work where they do.

Money buys freedoms and time, period. You are suggesting that a good number of workers will max out their living capabilities at cleaning toilets, and I'm sure that is true for a small percentage of workers. What this means is they need to live within their means, and that might mean, no kids, no independent living, no vacations etc. A life of cheap apartments with a roommate... Sucks, I know, but if that is ones true capability then there isn't much anyone can do. The problem is the vast majority are where they are at due to poor life choices and you want to fix that with a higher minimum wage. I agree that minimum should be raised due to the failure of our government that has inflated the cost of living these last 6 years to the point minimum is now too low.

Your statement that people are working minimum wage jobs because of poor life choices shows that you know not what you speak of. There are LOTS of people with BA's and MA's that are working those jobs. You seem to willing to ignore the fact that wages over the last 30 years as a percentage of inflation have gone down. That has nothing to do with the choices that any one employee of any company has made and everything to do with companies driving down the wage scale, pure and simple.

Yes, evil WalMart... So how can my neighbor keep his Quiznos open if he pays lets say a minimum of 15 bucks an hour. The magic number is about 33% gross goes into wages. More and the company fails, less and the company is ripping off the employees.

Are you really going to defend a company that has been shown multiple times of screwing its workers while turning over record profits? Walmart is the single largest employer in this country, and there are more than a few of them in almost any town you travel to in this great nation. They are also one of the biggest examples of how corporate greed is somehow applauded by some in this country. Yes, evil Walmart. When the biggest of the big can't even do right by their employees, why would anyone smaller than them go and do any different.

As to your premise about how much a business can spend before failing.....this goes back to all businesses needing to get on the same page as far as upping the current wage scale in the country. It seems that a lot of supposedly smart business people have forgotten a simple economic principle.....those with money don't spend money, they save it. Those with less tend to spend more out of need. THAT is what drives the economy. If the people at the bottom had more to spend, everyone would end up better off, since more product being purchased leads to more profit for the company, and turning some of that profit back to the employees allows them to go out and perpetuate the circle of spending. Its the 30 million families buying groceries and hitting the occasional movie that makes things go....not Donald Trump buying his 4th Gulfstream.

A good place to watch is Seattle that raised their minimum to 15 bucks an hour over a few years, we will see how that experiment works.

I'll spoil the ending for you. It's not going to work. The reasons are simple. First off, most of the companies in the Seattle area are going to raise prices. Now, that won't be SO bad for a Seattle resident....but for anyone going to Seattle who ISN'T making 15 bucks an hours, it's going to be a world of hurt. Then, the company owners are going to point to that as a reason for the experiment not working, all while ignoring that they are at least partly to blame for the problem in the first place. '

15 bucks is too much. Even I can admit that. A more realistic number is in the 10 dollar range. That, coupled with TEMPORARILY lowering taxes on businesses while the economic correction occurs, would stimulate the economy, which would then lead to year over year increases across all areas, not just at the corporate level.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tangerine
why?? when I see such stereotypes being displayed as fact so often on ATS??
and my kids are grown.

the point I made was plain and simple so instead attack me on something that I used to just get the point across instead of the actual point!
got it!

if you can't see where these low wages is causing the very problems that so many conservative rights gripe about constantly then I am willing to bet that you don't want to!

You're asking me why you shouldn't spread stereotypes because others do it on ATS???? Are you serious?

You're accusing me of not seeing "where these low wages is causing the very problems"? Have you actually read any of my posts? I'm one of the people saying that everyone is entitled to food, shelter, and medical care. I also advocate for education. I'm guessing that will go over your head, too.

originally posted by: bullseyelqcs
A person should be able to afford a place to live independently if they should choose to. There are apartments in my town that go for 450 that are in areas that don't make even some criminals nervous. You don't inherently need a vehicle, since most cities have public transportation. Eating is obviously a must, but filet and lobster are not. Health care and the like should also be affordable on a working wage. The ability to have any of those things should not be tethered to the notion that two people in a crappy situation should be forced to cohabitate simply because they work where they do.

I agree with most above, but not everyone gets the choices they want. Whether it is buying a 100k car or living independently both might end up being out of range. One of the reasons I improved myself over the years was get better choices in life.

Your statement that people are working minimum wage jobs because of poor life choices shows that you know not what you speak of. There are LOTS of people with BA's and MA's that are working those jobs. You seem to willing to ignore the fact that wages over the last 30 years as a percentage of inflation have gone down. That has nothing to do with the choices that any one employee of any company has made and everything to do with companies driving down the wage scale, pure and simple.

So these BA/MAs are going to work minimum wage the rest of their lives? The only reason we are debating minimum wage is because this administration has inflated the cost of living these past 6 years beyond what minimum wage can keep up with. The numbers speak otherwise when we look at the history of minimum wage based on 1996 dollars below. Personally I see the cost of living these past few years as really shooting up that may not play very much into the total cost of inflation, I also do not have a problem with 9 bucks an hour as a min as it is in my state.

Are you really going to defend a company that has been shown multiple times of screwing its workers while turning over record profits?

No, the company sucks and I do not shop or work there, but are we going to base minimum wage on Walmart?

Its the 30 million families buying groceries and hitting the occasional movie that makes things go....

Between them and Donald, how about just gaining some skill and work towards a non-minimum pay job.

As I said I see this whole issue as a failure of the administration...call me crazy..

originally posted by: dawnstar
Unfortunately here in america that roommate has a good chance of being someone from the opposite sex

I never had a female roommate... Wouldn't want one....

So, your whole point is because someone can not be responsible enough to have protected sex then we need to raise minimum wage so everyone can live on their own... geez...
The bottom line is once you go down the poor choice road all bets are off...