Eye opening article about Orlando wages.

[wvjules]

I think you missed what the PP was getting at. When those who have chosen to move into other jobs/positions are working regular hours, who is going to work the cash registers, bag groceries and stock shelves at the store while the kids are in school? I can tell you unequivocally it is not retirees. Do those adults who work during school hours not deserve a wage that allows them to survive?

And what is that wage?

 

[siren0119]

And what is that wage?

Depends on the area you live in and its relative cost of living. In most areas though, it's more than the current minimum wage.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Sad to say, many people do not want to work hard for a fair wage. They have been raised to feel entitled and the world owes them everything they desire. We now live in a society where everything is instant, including gratification. I see kids complaining not receiving the new car they wanted for their 16th birthday. What happened to WORKING for that car and being grateful you got the beater station wagon to drive?

If you want to know how the majority of those younger individuals got that way look no further than their parents--majority of the time.

 

[wvjules]

Depends on the area you live in and its relative cost of living. In most areas though, it's more than the current minimum wage.

Is that based on a family of 4 or a single person? A living wage is very different for those. What the single person can consider a "living" wage is no where near enough to support a family. So do we base wages on the number of people in the family?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think you missed what the PP was getting at. When those who have chosen to move into other jobs/positions are working regular hours, who is going to work the cash registers, bag groceries and stock shelves at the store while the kids are in school? I can tell you unequivocally it is not retirees. Do those adults who work during school hours not deserve a wage that allows them to survive?

It might depend on industry but when I worked retail it wasn't that you got paid more simply because of your age. You were paid on what the company was willing to pay (i.e starting salary at that time) and your experience (most of the time that was part of the equation).

Your 16 year old may be actually getting paid the same (or roughly the same) as the 40,50+ worker. The 40,50+ worker may be actually getting paid more than the 16 year old due to their experience. Just depended on the company.

But just because you were working during the day didn't mean you suddenly got paid more. In fact in general it was a requirement to work weekends and nights or at least have that availability just like it was the expectation for the 16 year old.

I def. knew workers who had worked out that they worked from 7am-3pm M-F kind of thing but that's not a given. During my breaks in college I worked those hours too and nope I didn't get paid more, during summer in high school I worked those hours too and nope I didn't get paid more. Plus there are work study programs at many high schools. My senior year of high school second semester I left every other day (due to block scheduling) at 12:30pm because I was able to do so (dropping classes) and I wasn't even in the work study program.

I do understand your point though but at the same time I'm not sure that would be a fair system (if industry wide) either.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Is that based on a family of 4 or a single person? A living wage is very different for those. What the single person can consider a "living" wage is no where near enough to support a family. So do we base wages on the number of people in the family?

That's why I made the point earlier about how one's income (hourly/yearly) is based on an individual.

We have programs that take into consideration how many are in your household (for government assistance and the like).

And while I understand how much more difficult it can be to have more people in the household you may be responsible for I personally don't want the income equation a company uses to say "well joe is single he's only worth X amount but susie is married and has 2 kids so she's worth Y amount" not to mention that excludes the idea of non-working adults in a household so then you would say "well joe is single and he's only worth X amount but susie is married though her spouse doesn't work and she has 2 kids so she's worth Z amount".

 

[DLgal]

And what is that wage?

Minimum wages should be zip code based (by county) and should be somehow tied to the cost of living in each area. A single earner should be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment in the county they are working in with full time employment, plus pay for basic needs (using the housing at 1/3 of monthly expenses rule). So, as an example, in a city where a 1br apartment costs $500, the minimum wage should be $9.37. In a city where a 1br apartment costs $1000, the wage should be $22.50, and so on. These would be "living wages" because they would allow individuals to live comfortably in the geographic area where they work.

This type of thing is already done for military members, in a sense. They get a "housing allowance" which is a tax free monthly payment that is designed to pay for housing and utilities, based on geographic location. It is rank and zip code based, and varies based on whether a servicemember has dependents or not. However, the core idea is that their base pay is meant to cover EVERYTHING ELSE (which is why military pay is lower than civilian pay) but the housing allowance covers all the costs of housing, because servicemembers do not have a choice where they are stationed. A lot of data is used to determine the amounts, based on average market rate for rents of different types of dwellings. Every year, the housing allowances are adjusted up or down, based on market conditions.

I think minimum wages would benefit from being tied to the same type of index, because housing is the single largest expense for every working person. In my opinion, students and minor children LIVING WITH THEIR PARENTS (i.e. high school student part time jobs) should be paid a separate, different minimum wage that is more along the lines of what our current minimum wages are at.

 

[siren0119]

It might depend on industry but when I worked retail it wasn't that you got paid more simply because of your age. You were paid on what the company was willing to pay (i.e starting salary at that time) and your experience (most of the time that was part of the equation).

Your 16 year old may be actually getting paid the same (or roughly the same) as the 40,50+ worker. The 40,50+ worker may be actually getting paid more than the 16 year old due to their experience. Just depended on the company.

But just because you were working during the day didn't mean you suddenly got paid more. In fact in general it was a requirement to work weekends and nights or at least have that availability just like it was the expectation for the 16 year old.

I def. knew workers who had worked out that they worked from 7am-3pm M-F kind of thing but that's not a given. During my breaks in college I worked those hours too and nope I didn't get paid more, during summer in high school I worked those hours too and nope I didn't get paid more. Plus there are work study programs at many high schools. My senior year of high school second semester I left every other day (due to block scheduling) at 12:30pm because I was able to do so (dropping classes) and I wasn't even in the work study program.

I do understand your point though but at the same time I'm not sure that would be a fair system (if industry wide) either.

Oh I'm definitely not saying that wage should be age-based. But the PP I was responding to had suggested that minimum wage jobs were intended for kids in school and retirees, as a way of justifying not paying a living wage. My point was that those businesses with minimum wage jobs do not close down when schools are in session, or when retirees are unable to fill shifts, and so there is a need for employees during those hours - adult age people who likely have bills, food and rent to cover with their wages. I certainly don't have the qualifications to determine WHAT a living wage is, but enough experience existing to know that in this day and age, $8 an hour before taxes and deductions doesn't cut it.

 

[SnowBelleAlice]

She and her family have a three bedroom home; she chooses to continue working at Disney, far from home ~ so she chooses to sleep in her car rather than make the commute. I bet she could work close to home for the same pay, perhaps more. And she could spend less money on food.

 

[wvjules]

MCM, I agree with you. It should be based on individual but those that keep arguing "livable" wage. That varies depending on the circumstances, single, family, etc.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Minimum wages should be zip code based (by county) and should be somehow tied to the cost of living in each area. A single earner should be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment in the county they are working in with full time employment, plus pay for basic needs (using the housing at 1/3 of monthly expenses rule). So, as an example, in a city where a 1br apartment costs $500, the minimum wage should be $9.37. In a city where a 1br apartment costs $1000, the wage should be $22.50, and so on. These would be "living wages" because they would allow individuals to live comfortably in the geographic area where they work.

This type of thing is already done for military members, in a sense. They get a "housing allowance" which is a tax free monthly payment that is designed to pay for housing and utilities, based on geographic location. It is rank and zip code based, and varies based on whether a servicemember has dependents or not. However, the core idea is that their base pay is meant to cover EVERYTHING ELSE (which is why military pay is lower than civilian pay) but the housing allowance covers all the costs of housing, because servicemembers do not have a choice where they are stationed. A lot of data is used to determine the amounts, based on average market rate for rents of different types of dwellings. Every year, the housing allowances are adjusted up or down, based on market conditions.

I think minimum wages would benefit from being tied to the same type of index, because housing is the single largest expense for every working person. In my opinion, students and minor children LIVING WITH THEIR PARENTS (i.e. high school student part time jobs) should be paid a separate, different minimum wage that is more along the lines of what our current minimum wages are at.

Here's the problem I have with your example: Since when does the government (or a company) have to pay you enough so you can live in a 1-bedroom apartment? Isn't it up to you to find a housing situation that fits your needs and budget? Back in the Stone Age (mid-80's), DH was a college graduate with an engineering degree. He found his 1-bedroom apartment to be too pricey for his tastes--mind you, engineers make decent money, he just thought it was too much FOR HIM. So, he moved into a 4-bedroom house with 3 other young, single adults, and cut his rent to about a third.

My point is, there are solutions if people look for them. House-sharing, vehicle-sharing, even sharing large tools is much more common in some cultures. It may not be optimal, but if it's what you can afford, it can at least work for you in the short term, while you work your way to a raise or two, get some training, whatever.

I just get tired of people always turning to the government to fix everything. Sure, there are people who genuinely need help, but there are also plenty of people, like the woman in the article, who make poor choices. I'm all in favor of pursuing your dream, if you can, but if it means low wages to the point where your child isn't eating, that's when it's time to suck it up and take a job that pays better. especially in this case--she has training that will get her better pay, she just chooses not to work in that field. Sometimes, you have to do things you dislike in order to provide for your family.

 

[FireflyTrance]

It sounds like what the Orlando area needs is more housing.

Where I live a 1 bedroom is $3000+ per month. To afford that on minimum wage you would need to make $35+ an hour. Except if everyone made that it would push the price of a 1 bedroom even higher, through supply and demand. That or many businesses would close because they can't afford to pay $35 an hour.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

Here's the problem I have with your example: Since when does the government (or a company) have to pay you enough so you can live in a 1-bedroom apartment? Isn't it up to you to find a housing situation that fits your needs and budget? Back in the Stone Age (mid-80's), DH was a college graduate with an engineering degree. He found his 1-bedroom apartment to be too pricey for his tastes--mind you, engineers make decent money, he just thought it was too much FOR HIM. So, he moved into a 4-bedroom house with 3 other young, single adults, and cut his rent to about a third.

My point is, there are solutions if people look for them. House-sharing, vehicle-sharing, even sharing large tools is much more common in some cultures. It may not be optimal, but if it's what you can afford, it can at least work for you in the short term, while you work your way to a raise or two, get some training, whatever.

I just get tired of people always turning to the government to fix everything. Sure, there are people who genuinely need help, but there are also plenty of people, like the woman in the article, who make poor choices. I'm all in favor of pursuing your dream, if you can, but if it means low wages to the point where your child isn't eating, that's when it's time to suck it up and take a job that pays better. especially in this case--she has training that will get her better pay, she just chooses not to work in that field. Sometimes, you have to do things you dislike in order to provide for your family.

I think housing is a completely separate issue here. No, the government shouldn't require companies to pay an employee enough to buy a house, BUT there ought to be some way the government can incentivize affordable housing. Around here we have a ton of construction going on but it's all either expensive student housing or mcmansions. There's very little in the way of affordable housing being built.

I really wish the author of this article had picked a better subject to interview. This isn't someone stuck in a low paying job because they have no other options, she chose to give up a job where she could make a whole lot more money to work for Disney. She chooses to live so far away she can't reliably afford gas because she wants more space, etc.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think housing is a completely separate issue here. No, the government shouldn't require companies to pay an employee enough to buy a house, BUT there ought to be some way the government can incentivize affordable housing. Around here we have a ton of construction going on but it's all either expensive student housing or mcmansions. There's very little in the way of affordable housing being built.

But what incentives would the government give? Affordable housing takes on a variety of meanings even though I am of the opinion that my own area lacks affordable housing. I do agree with you on new construction as a lot of the newer apartments are fancier with higher rent or in places like mini urban cores/loft styles but I'm not sure how the government can intrude too much.

What would be the consequence for funds? The city or county or state telling a company no and then what? Does that space just not get utilized? Then you're losing out on work for workers and potential funds for certain places (like say businesses on the lower level of an apartment compex with apartments, usually 2 to 3 levels high, above that).

Once you actually get into Section 8 housing and the like you will run into other issues.

I really wish the author of this article had picked a better subject to interview. This isn't someone stuck in a low paying job because they have no other options, she chose to give up a job where she could make a whole lot more money to work for Disney. She chooses to live so far away she can't reliably afford gas because she wants more space, etc.

Yeah I agree, I guess I didn't realize in the article (or maybe it was contained within a different article) about this woman and her specific situation regarding her previous experience. I don't think that means people suddenly stop empathizing with someone's plight but I do think people can more easily dismiss the grand scheme of things when they use a person who has at least some things completely within her control. Would the woman still be part of the overall issue being discussed even if she moved to a place either closer to WDW OR took a job closer to her current situation? Probably but may not to the severe degree her story is being used to showcase something. Obviously the image conjured up by someone sleeping in their car in a parking lot to save on gasoline costs elicits certain emotions.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

But what incentives would the government give? Affordable housing takes on a variety of meanings even though I am of the opinion that my own area lacks affordable housing. I do agree with you on new construction as a lot of the newer apartments are fancier with higher rent or in places like mini urban cores/loft styles but I'm not sure how the government can intrude too much.

What would be the consequence for funds? The city or county or state telling a company no and then what? Does that space just not get utilized? Then you're losing out on work for workers and potential funds for certain places (like say businesses on the lower level of an apartment compex with apartments, usually 2 to 3 levels high, above that).

Once you actually get into Section 8 housing and the like you will run into other issues.

I don't know what the answer is. I wish I did, or someone else could figure it out.

One issue that the government could solve, at least here anyway, is that in order to build these new, fancy, expensive complexes and subdivisions, developers are buying up what used to be affordable housing and tearing it down. In the last year, we've lost 2 large trailer parks, 2 apartment complexes, and a motel that housed a lot of long term guests - replaced with expensive apartment buildings. In the meantime, no new low income housing is being built. Where are the people who lived there supposed to go?

It's not even just developers. The city we used to live in tore all their public housing down and replaced it with single family homes - which they sold. The people who used to live in the public housing certainly couldn't qualify for mortgages. Yes, the neighborhoods looked nicer and property values went up, but so did the homeless population. This was a city where the waiting list to get on the waiting list for section 8 was years long, it's not like the low income housing wasn't needed.

 

[Dakota731]

I'm curious the magic number everyone seems to think is the livable wage? Is it $20 an hour? What about a single mom of three who lives in New York City and works at Starbucks? Maybe we should say $40 to support her family. Maybe the government should analyze everyone's bills and pick a salary for each family.
How about maybe we take responsibility for our own lives - a novel concept that seems to have go by the wayside the past few years. If your area is too expensive for you to have everything you want working in a restaurant, maybe you should move to a different part of the country. If you think you can't live on $15 an hour working at a grocery store, how about getting training for a job that pays more? Or maybe work two jobs? Or maybe work hard, show up on time, stay off your cellphone and you may get promoted into management the way we used to do it in the "old days".
Though I guess it's just easier to say the government should pay everyone whatever they want to be paid, maybe all jobs should be paid equal - that would be fair - or maybe the government should just take over all corporations and we would be one perfect country.
I'm curious why immigrants want to move here if there is no opportunity to make a "living wage". Seems to me they would stay where they are if they weren't able to support their families here.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

I'm curious the magic number everyone seems to think is the livable wage? Is it $20 an hour? What about a single mom of three who lives in New York City and works at Starbucks? Maybe we should say $40 to support her family. Maybe the government should analyze everyone's bills and pick a salary for each family.
How about maybe we take responsibility for our own lives - a novel concept that seems to have go by the wayside the past few years. If your area is too expensive for you to have everything you want working in a restaurant, maybe you should move to a different part of the country. If you think you can't live on $15 an hour working at a grocery store, how about getting training for a job that pays more? Or maybe work two jobs? Or maybe work hard, show up on time, stay off your cellphone and you may get promoted into management the way we used to do it in the "old days".
Though I guess it's just easier to say the government should pay everyone whatever they want to be paid, maybe all jobs should be paid equal - that would be fair - or maybe the government should just take over all corporations and we would be one perfect country.
I'm curious why immigrants want to move here if there is no opportunity to make a "living wage". Seems to me they would stay where they are if they weren't able to support their families here.

1. I've asked it before - how is the single mother working 2 jobs to support her family being irresponsible? What happens when the 2 jobs still aren't enough to cover her rent? She's working 80 hours a week, when does she have time to get this extra job training? Does she give up a job and end up on welfare? Then she gets called lazy and entitled.

2. How do you suggest someone who can't make ends meet pack up and move? Let's see - deposit plus first and last months rent on a new apartment, money to rent a moving truck, deposits for utilities if they aren't included in your rent, childcare (becuase many low income families rely on extended family and/or friends to care for their children while they are at work. They will have to find other options since that different part of the country may not be close to family), a month or so worth of nest egg to cover the time lapse between starting a new job and getting a first paycheck. That's a lot of money for someone who is barely scraping by.

3. What happens when you work hard, show up on time, stay off your cellphone, and then your temp contract is up and you get replaced with a brand new round of temps because they will work for the starting rate and if you stayed they would have to give you a raise plus benefits?

4. Illegal immigrants come here for many reasons. They work for less and can live on less, but they also get taken advantage of by employers who know they won't complain.

5. I don't think anyone on this thread has said that grocery store workers should be paid as much as doctors or that everyone should be paid equally. There is a middle ground, I don't know where it is, but I do know that THE OLD DAYS ARE GONE.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm curious the magic number everyone seems to think is the livable wage? Is it $20 an hour? What about a single mom of three who lives in New York City and works at Starbucks? Maybe we should say $40 to support her family. Maybe the government should analyze everyone's bills and pick a salary for each family.
How about maybe we take responsibility for our own lives - a novel concept that seems to have go by the wayside the past few years. If your area is too expensive for you to have everything you want working in a restaurant, maybe you should move to a different part of the country. If you think you can't live on $15 an hour working at a grocery store, how about getting training for a job that pays more? Or maybe work two jobs? Or maybe work hard, show up on time, stay off your cellphone and you may get promoted into management the way we used to do it in the "old days".
Though I guess it's just easier to say the government should pay everyone whatever they want to be paid, maybe all jobs should be paid equal - that would be fair - or maybe the government should just take over all corporations and we would be one perfect country.
I'm curious why immigrants want to move here if there is no opportunity to make a "living wage". Seems to me they would stay where they are if they weren't able to support their families here.

It's really limiting to have one's frame of mind be always "back in the olden days".

I'm not saying that there aren't cases to be had for this and that truly I'm not but stagnant thinking is what gets us into stagnant problems. Not everything has to change as the world moves on but some things do or at the very least adjusted.

 

[Lilsia]

Here's the problem I have with your example: Since when does the government (or a company) have to pay you enough so you can live in a 1-bedroom apartment? Isn't it up to you to find a housing situation that fits your needs and budget? Back in the Stone Age (mid-80's), DH was a college graduate with an engineering degree. He found his 1-bedroom apartment to be too pricey for his tastes--mind you, engineers make decent money, he just thought it was too much FOR HIM. So, he moved into a 4-bedroom house with 3 other young, single adults, and cut his rent to about a third.

My point is, there are solutions if people look for them. House-sharing, vehicle-sharing, even sharing large tools is much more common in some cultures. It may not be optimal, but if it's what you can afford, it can at least work for you in the short term, while you work your way to a raise or two, get some training, whatever.

I just get tired of people always turning to the government to fix everything. Sure, there are people who genuinely need help, but there are also plenty of people, like the woman in the article, who make poor choices. I'm all in favor of pursuing your dream, if you can, but if it means low wages to the point where your child isn't eating, that's when it's time to suck it up and take a job that pays better. especially in this case--she has training that will get her better pay, she just chooses not to work in that field. Sometimes, you have to do things you dislike in order to provide for your family.

There is a serious problem when a person is working full time and can not even afford to have a small apartment. As is stands now, people are getting more from welfare then if they worked full time jobs at minimum wage. How is that NOT an issue? Over the last decade, there have been many people that come and work for a few months and then quit so that they can get benefits again at the place that I work. Minimum wage is poverty. How can anyone think that it is right for a person working full time to still be under the poverty level. Your work and time should be worth more then that. All of these jobs are something that society needs to function. They are no less important then any other job. I don't care what you say or think. The facts are that in the past, people were able to support themselves with these jobs. Now they are not.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

There is a serious problem when a person is working full time and can not even afford to have a small apartment. As is stands now, people are getting more from welfare then if they worked full time jobs at minimum wage. How is that NOT an issue? Over the last decade, there have been many people that come and work for a few months and then quit so that they can get benefits again at the place that I work. Minimum wage is poverty. How can anyone think that it is right for a person working full time to still be under the poverty level. Your work and time should be worth more then that. All of these jobs are something that society needs to function. They are no less important then any other job. I don't care what you say or think. The facts are that in the past, people were able to support themselves with these jobs. Now they are not.

Agreed.

It's not just the money. It's the benefits that come with the government entitlements. You don't just get a check in the mail - you also get Medicaid, subsidized rent, food stamps, free lunches for your kids at school, free preschool, so many benefits that it's really hard to give all that up for a minimum wage job that comes with none.. That's why it's so hard to get people off these programs once they are on them. It takes a really good paying job for them to come out ahead and the current minimum wage isn't going to do it. It's not even close.