Eye opening article about Orlando wages.

[Lilsia]

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.

I don't think you see what is going on now. The pay used to be commensurate with cost of living. You made less, but things also costs much less. Housing, groceries, cars, etc where all much cheaper and everything was more in balance. If you made less money, you lived in an apartment(which was cheaper then buying a home), you got a cheaper car, you just had a more frugal life. The cost of living had jumped dramatically, but wages have not. The exact same apartment that I lived in 27 years ago that I could afford when I made minimum wage, is not affordable now for those with 1 income. Apartment prices have skyrocketed and now many are more expensive then my mortgage. That is out of balance. It is no longer a case of start at the bottom with a crap job and cheap apartment and work your way up. The bottom is so far down now that unless you have help, it is close to impossible. The government knows this. There is a reason why they changed the dependent age to 26. At 26, most of us were married with kids and living in our first home. So to some of you $15/ hour sounds like a lot. But what does it get you now? That is the question. My grandma said that she got paid 15 cents an hour, but their rent was $3 a month. It is all about balance and we are out of balance.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

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.

Not to be nit picky but technically by Federal levels poverty level is approximately $6.00/hr for a single person.

Obviously Federal minimum wage at $7.25 is not affording one all that better opportunities so I'm not saying the level is adequate now or that people are somehow better off being just above the Poverty Line.

 

[Lilsia]

Not to be nit picky but technically by Federal levels poverty level is approximately $6.00/hr for a single person.

Obviously Federal minimum wage at $7.25 is not affording one all that better opportunities so I'm not saying the level is adequate now or that people are somehow better off being just above the Poverty Line.

View attachment 458532

Yep, that extra buck 25 makes a HUGE difference. LOL If cost of living goes down, then there would be not problem. But I think most reasonable people can open their eyes and see that the cost of living has dramatically outpaced wages. And this is why so many agree that wages need to rise.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The bottom is so far down now that unless you have help, it is close to impossible. The government knows this. There is a reason why they changed the dependent age to 26. At 26, most of us were married with kids and living in our first home.

Age 26 is for ACA. It's not about knowing the COL, marriage or kids, etc.

It used to be if you went to college and graduated right after you were kicked off your parents insurance. I was 2 1/2 weeks after I graduated at the age of 22. The problem was the assumption that especially after one graduated college you would have gotten job offers already and were able to get your own insurance with your company. That had become outdated over time.

In terms of taxes you're not considered a dependent for that long (you can be a student up to age 24 which would cover some grad school). It's just ACA which is medical coverage. For all other purposes welcome to adulthood earlier

 

[DLgal]

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.

The government seems to feel compelled to pay their military members enough so that they can afford to live their own places. Why do you think that is? You tell me. Your tax money is funding this if you live in the US. Do you disagree with it? At some level, you are supporting this very idea.

 

[FireflyTrance]

I don't disagree with your point about sharing a house, but housing was also more affordable in the mid-80s than it is now. And college tuition was less expensive, so he likely carried less student loan debt than college graduates do today . I see the argument being made that people should better themselves with good education so they can get a skilled labor job, but getting that education is also much more costly.

The woman in this article is a Millennial, who had a child while she was a teenager. She is up against both much higher housing costs and much higher educations costs than the generations before her. This is true for everyone of her generation.

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.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yep, that extra buck 25 makes a HUGE difference. LOL If cost of living goes down, then there would be not problem. But I think most reasonable people can open their eyes and see that the cost of living has dramatically outpaced wages. And this is why so many agree that wages need to rise.

I already said I wasn't talking about the amount in the way you're framing it. I'm just the messenger I'm sure as heck not making a claim that the Poverty Line is where we want people to be at. You were giving specifics about Poverty Line I thought it would be prudent to give the 2019 table from the Federal guidelines for context.

That sounds terrible honestly that at your work you know a lot of people working under the Poverty Line (using the present guidelines) working full time and quiting and coming back for the benefits.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I don't disagree with your point about sharing a house, but housing was also more affordable in the mid-80s than it is now. And college tuition was less expensive, so he likely carried less student loan debt than college graduates do today . I see the argument being made that people should better themselves with good education so they can get a skilled labor job, but getting that education is also much more costly.

The woman in this article is a Millennial, who had a child while she was a teenager. She is up against both much higher housing costs and much higher educations costs than the generations before her. This is true for everyone of her generation.

But the woman in question already has some credentials that would lend herself more than likely to a better overall income. From the article she was a radiology tech (and I missed that when I initially read the article). I'm willing to bet a radiology tech makes more money than a seasonal cook at WDW would make (which is what she was initially working at in WDW). Maybe there weren't any radiology tech positions available in her area as opposed to Tampa but I have to wonder if the transition from that to a seasonal cooking job with Disney to bouncing to positions that would allow her more interactions with guests wasn't due in part for her desire to work for Disney. Obviously that's not the issue for other people in her similar situation so yeah she probably wasn't the best example to use.

 

[Lilsia]

That sounds terrible honestly that at your work you know a lot of people working under the Poverty Line (using the present guidelines) working full time and quiting and coming back for the benefits.

Yeah, it was a shock to me too how open people are about it. They know the system and play it well. They go on job interviews just to have the businesses sign off that they interviewed. Or go work for the minimum amount of time before they can renew the benefits. A part of me is infuriated and a part of me does not blame them. Why would you work your butt off when you can sit at home and get free housing, free food, free medical. I would rather that wages be raised so that these people can support themselves over my tax money supporting them. Who wouldn't. Oh wait.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yeah, it was a shock to me too how open people are about it. They know the system and play it well. They go on job interviews just to have the businesses sign off that they interviewed. Or go work for the minimum amount of time before they can renew the benefits. A part of me is infuriated and a part of me does not blame them. Why would you work your butt off when you can sit at home and get free housing, free food, free medical. I would rather that wages be raised so that these people can support themselves over my tax money supporting them. Who wouldn't. Oh wait.

Personality-wise you'll always find people willing to game the system. Won't matter the pay. Some people just don't want to work or they define work clearly different than others. I don't really know how many people that comprises of because I'd like to think that most people really don't like being in the position that they are in and would find it great relief to get out of it.

 

[Lilsia]

Personality-wise you'll always find people willing to game the system. Won't matter the pay. Some people just don't want to work or they define work clearly different than others. I don't really know how many people that comprises of because I'd like to think that most people really don't like being in the position that they are in and would find it great relief to get out of it.

This is true. There will always be people that are lazy. I am "old school" and always put in 120% at my job. But I am going to be honest that I have actually said to my husband that we should divorce so that I can be one of these people, after a very long week of working my butt off. To get to the point where a normally decent person feels like they are being cheated and to have their integrity waiver, means that things are very broken.

 

[QueenIsabella]

The government seems to feel compelled to pay their military members enough so that they can afford to live their own places. Why do you think that is? You tell me. Your tax money is funding this if you live in the US. Do you disagree with it? At some level, you are supporting this very idea.

Um, you do know that military personnel actually receive training, and therefore have skills that are worth more than your average burger-flippers. I spent many years working with submariners, who are considered the elite of the Navy (at least, that's what they told me). They work WAY more than 40 hours a week, both at sea and while the subs are in port. Even so, enlisted personnel don't make a ton of money, officers do better.

 

[kaytieeldr]

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,

Apologies, but

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.

.
Your city and state have to legislate. Require a% of any new construction needs to be actually affordable. Not fallow new McMansion construction, not allow affordable housing to be usurped.

 

[DLgal]

Um, you do know that military personnel actually receive training, and therefore have skills that are worth more than your average burger-flippers. I spent many years working with submariners, who are considered the elite of the Navy (at least, that's what they told me). They work WAY more than 40 hours a week, both at sea and while the subs are in port. Even so, enlisted personnel don't make a ton of money, officers do better.

You do know that "burger flippers" get training and have skills too, right? It might surprise you, but fast food work is HARD. Not everyone is cut out for it. I worked fast food in high school and it was extremely stressful and required a lot of skills. Obviously you never did that kind of work. I also worked retail, also required a significant amount of skills.

I also have been a military spouse for 20 years and can tell you that the majority of military members, to include officers, learn very specific skill sets over the years on the job,and when they come in, they know absolutely nothing. (Even after 10, 15 years, a lot of them are still completely incompetent. My husband has been in charge of marines his whole career and some of them can barely function as adults, to include officers). They are taught on the job. It's a trade, more than anything. For the first several years, it is similar to an apprenticeship. Submariners are the smartest of the smart in the Navy. The officers basically need to have degrees in nuclear physics to even be considered. Those guys get MAJOR bonus pays and incentives for doing that job. You can't use them as a gauge for what a typical military servicemember is like at all.

A large percentage of military members would be considered unskilled labor in the civilian world because the skills they learn aren't transferable. This is why the GI Bill exists, so they can get out and get a college education. This is also part of the reason why transitioning veterans often end up unemployed. They are bodies in boots, trained for war. That's what it comes down to. Our government still thinks they deserve to be able to live with dignity in their own dwelling, not sharing a house with 3 other people.

 

[QueenIsabella]

You do know that "burger flippers" get training and have skills too, right? It might surprise you, but fast food work is HARD. Not everyone is cut out for it. I worked fast food in high school and it was extremely stressful and required a lot of skills. Obviously you never did that kind of work. I also worked retail, also required a significant amount of skills.

I also have been a military spouse for 20 years and can tell you that the majority of military members, to include officers, learn very specific skill sets over the years on the job,and when they come in, they know absolutely nothing. (Even after 10, 15 years, a lot of them are still completely incompetent. My husband has been in charge of marines his whole career and some of them can barely function as adults, to include officers). They are taught on the job. It's a trade, more than anything. For the first several years, it is similar to an apprenticeship. Submariners are the smartest of the smart in the Navy. The officers basically need to have degrees in nuclear physics to even be considered. Those guys get MAJOR bonus pays and incentives for doing that job. You can't use them as a gauge for what a typical military servicemember is like at all.

A large percentage of military members would be considered unskilled labor in the civilian world because the skills they learn aren't transferable. This is why the GI Bill exists, so they can get out and get a college education. This is also part of the reason why transitioning veterans often end up unemployed. They are bodies in boots, trained for war. That's what it comes down to. Our government still thinks they deserve to be able to live with dignity in their own dwelling, not sharing a house with 3 other people.

There's no "indignity" with sharing a house. People do it all the time! It can be an appropriate lifestyle choice. As I mentioned, my DH chose to do this to save money. He actually liked it better than a 1BR apartment--he had people to hang out with, more space (living room, big kitchen, full basement, yard...). It's not deprivation at all. And I'm not suggesting that it's the right choice for everyone--just that it's an option for people who want to spend less on housing. In a major city with good public transportation, owning no car might work (Note: Orlando would not fit this criteria, IMHO). In some families, owning 1 car versus one for every driver might be a good choice.

If you're bored, check out Mr. Money Mustache. It consist of people, many with very good, high-paying jobs, who want to retire from the rat race. The people there are super, super creative in finding ways to live very cheaply. Now, their goal is to save money so they can leave/cut back from the working world. But, a lot of them are frugal doctors, lawyers, IT people--you name it, who share the common goal of saving money now for financial freedom later. Some of the things that they do to save money are:

shared housing
one or no cars, frequently biking to work
eating cheap foods, sometimes homegrown, virtually always home-prepared
dumpster diving
shopping yard sales, thrift stores, and other second-hand markets
bartering goods and service
freezing/canning produce
hunting/fishing/growing their own meat

Now, obviously, not all of these ideas would work for everyone. Personally, I don't garden or hunt, and I'm not willing to dumpster-dive. But my point is, there are options out there.

 

[BadPinkTink]

Its interesting reading all the views and opinions from people who are not or have never been in a low income situation in the last 10 years and who are not under 30.

The world has changed a huge amount in the last 10 years, what was possible in the 1990's, 1980's 1970's etc etc is not possible in 2019.

I wonder how many of you would have a different viewpoint if you have been on benefits / long term unemployed / minimum wage in the last 10 years.

Its all very well saying there are opportunists and ways and means and people should upskill and people should get an education etc etc and all the other things said in this thread when you are seeing the world from a position of being financially secure and living in an affluent area with low crime and high employment.

I would love to see how people in a low income area respond to this article, but I guess with this being a Disney board, the responses are skewed in favour of those who are financially secure.

 

[kaytieeldr]

and who are not under 30.

Why do you think things are different for people over 30?

 

[piccolopat]

Everyone who works deserves a living wage.

Who is going to stock your grocery shelves, ring up all your purchases at Target, pave your roads, deliver your Amazon packages, get you on and off the rides at WDW, bus your tables at a restaurant, drive your kid's school bus, clean the bathrooms at their schools or at your work place if folks weren't doing these jobs for pay and to earn their living?

Good luck finding enough kids with after school jobs and retirees looking for a little extra cash to work all the hours in a 24 hour day, doing all the things that make your life (and mine) more convenient, healthy or enjoyable and that give you time to work your own job, more "skilled" though it may be. I repeat: everyone who works deserves. a living wage that allows them to live safely, eat securely, and pay for the basic necessities of life.

The problem then is how do we define a living wage? Is it enough for someone to rent a singe room somewhere or enough for a studio or 1BR apartment? Is it enough to get a place in a safe neighborhood or just anywhere? Is it enough to have a car and pay for gas, insurance & maintenance or enough to walk/bike, carpool or take public transit? Is it enough to afford basic cable/internet or enough to get to the public library to use the internet there? Is it enough for a cell phone with plan or a basic go phone? This doesn't even begin to add in the variables if there are kids or pets involved.

Minimum wage jobs are for unskilled labor. They are for people just starting out in the workforce or just looking to pick up some extra cash. They are not intended to fully support a person or a family. In this story, the woman has to travel over an hour to get to her job at Disney. Surely there has to be a minimum wage job closer to home that might be more appropriate for her circumstances.

 

[azdisneylover]

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?

There are many cashiers at the grocery store where I shop who have been there for years. Not all will move into other hours or job positions. There are many who love being a cashier, or baker, or customer service rep. Some will work during the time their children are in school so they can be there when they get out of school. Other adults who start a new job, will start out at entry level pay until they prove they can pull their weight and do the job for which they were hired.

 

[azdisneylover]

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.

AMEN!!! I agree.