• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

 
 
 
ksen

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8845881/food-stamps

5) I'm not poor because I'm lazy or stupid or uneducated

This is the assumption that makes me the angriest. "Why don't you get a better job?" "Why don't you get a second job?" "Educate yourself for a better career!"

I have a better idea — why don't you start valuing my time as highly as you value yours?

The most underpaid workers are often the ones you'd miss if they weren't there. Restaurant cooks and servers, clerks in stores, the people who clean your house or mow your lawn or take care of your kids or of you when you're old or sick. We do the things you can't do, or won't do, because you're doing other things. I'm not saying you should stop doing those other things. Those things you're doing are good things, possibly great things, hopefully wonderful things!

I understand that there are some skills that are rarer or more necessary or valuable than others. But not only is my time and labor not as highly valued as yours, it's legal to deliberately keep me in poverty. And yes, every time an employer hires anyone at less than a living wage, or at part-time hours, it is a deliberate choice. Employers make it because they can, because they can get away with it. Because it's legal to pay a wage that I can't live on even working 40 hours a week. It's legal to use scheduling software to justify cutting hours to 20 a week. To pay certain employees half of the minimum wage and expect patrons to make up for it with tips.

It's legal to jigger schedules so that employees must make last-minute arrangements for child care or transportation. It's legal to force employees to either cancel plans or lose their jobs. Once upon a time, it was possible to work a day job and a night job. But when you never know when you're going to work for even one job, it's virtually impossible to hold down two unless you have some sort of skill you can freelance. Add the realities of child care, transportation, and communication into the mix, and most low-income workers can forget it.
Click to expand...

I'm triggered.
 
ksen said:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8845881/food-stamps

5) I'm not poor because I'm lazy or stupid or uneducated

This is the assumption that makes me the angriest. "Why don't you get a better job?" "Why don't you get a second job?" "Educate yourself for a better career!"

I have a better idea — why don't you start valuing my time as highly as you value yours?

The most underpaid workers are often the ones you'd miss if they weren't there. Restaurant cooks and servers, clerks in stores, the people who clean your house or mow your lawn or take care of your kids or of you when you're old or sick. We do the things you can't do, or won't do, because you're doing other things. I'm not saying you should stop doing those other things. Those things you're doing are good things, possibly great things, hopefully wonderful things!

I understand that there are some skills that are rarer or more necessary or valuable than others. But not only is my time and labor not as highly valued as yours, it's legal to deliberately keep me in poverty. And yes, every time an employer hires anyone at less than a living wage, or at part-time hours, it is a deliberate choice. Employers make it because they can, because they can get away with it. Because it's legal to pay a wage that I can't live on even working 40 hours a week. It's legal to use scheduling software to justify cutting hours to 20 a week. To pay certain employees half of the minimum wage and expect patrons to make up for it with tips.

It's legal to jigger schedules so that employees must make last-minute arrangements for child care or transportation. It's legal to force employees to either cancel plans or lose their jobs. Once upon a time, it was possible to work a day job and a night job. But when you never know when you're going to work for even one job, it's virtually impossible to hold down two unless you have some sort of skill you can freelance. Add the realities of child care, transportation, and communication into the mix, and most low-income workers can forget it.
Click to expand...

I'm triggered.
Click to expand...

That's just capitalism isn't it. It's good for certain things. Less good for other things. Like this.
 
I'm triggered.
Click to expand...
Me too. The article should have a "trigger warning" posted or something. I mean if it's required for Greek classics, it should be required for this dross.

That woman whines that she is not paid much for low skilled work but she made a choice to work in food service for 16 years even though she (presumably) has a college degree. She made a choice to have children. Why should the rest of us feel guilty about her choices in life?
 
Derec said:
That woman whines that she is not paid much for low skilled work but she made a choice to work in food service for 16 years even though she (presumably) has a college degree. She made a choice to have children. Why should the rest of us feel guilty about her choices in life?
Click to expand...

I assume that the rationale of "Because she's a fellow member of society and, as such, is worthy of our consideration and respect" is out the window from the start?
 
Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?

Why should businesses be able to get away with scheduling shenanigans that make it nearly impossible to have that second job or go to school in order to advance yourself?

Businesses used to be able to do lots of things that endangered real, live human beings. We solved it through regulations. We can do the same here.
 
ksen said:
Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?
Click to expand...
Do you think every job should pay "living wage" not just for a single person but for a whole family with children? And how many children should every job be able to support? Should every job have to be able to support a Duggaresque family?
Why should businesses be able to get away with scheduling shenanigans that make it nearly impossible to have that second job or go to school in order to advance yourself?
Click to expand...
I do not know a good answer to that. I can see both the point of employee needing predictability of schedule and the employer needing some flexibility in businesses with variable demand like restaurants.
 
Derec said:
Do you think every job should pay "living wage" not just for a single person but for a whole family with children? And how many children should every job be able to support? Should every job have to be able to support a Duggaresque family?
Click to expand...

The amount can be worked out in negotiations. That a living wage should be paid should not be up for argument in a civilized society that respects all its members.
 
ksen said:
Derec said:
Do you think every job should pay "living wage" not just for a single person but for a whole family with children? And how many children should every job be able to support? Should every job have to be able to support a Duggaresque family?
Click to expand...

The amount can be worked out in negotiations. That a living wage should be paid should not be up for argument in a civilized society that respects all its members.
Click to expand...

I think that the living wage should be based on what a single person would need. If someone has children, then the government should subsidize them for the kids based on their income levels, but the rate which businesses pay shouldn't factor that sort of thing in.
 
That sounds reasonable and like something a civilized society can debate about.
 
ksen said:
Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?
Click to expand...

Why should it be exclusively the employer's moral or legal responsibility to ensure employees have enough money to live on, have health care coverage, etc?

I have noticed this trend in the USA. You lack proper socialism such as universal health care funded through government, so you put this burden on individual employers. I am very surprised that the employers stand for that instead of pushing for proper social government supports.

Businesses used to be able to do lots of things that endangered real, live human beings. We solved it through regulations. We can do the same here.
Click to expand...

When businesses put employees in danger or damage their health, then it starts to make sense to hold them responsible for it and make them pay for it. That isn't so with basic living expenses or basic health care.
 
Derec said:
I'm triggered.
Click to expand...
Me too. The article should have a "trigger warning" posted or something. I mean if it's required for Greek classics, it should be required for this dross.

That woman whines that she is not paid much for low skilled work but she made a choice to work in food service for 16 years even though she (presumably) has a college degree. She made a choice to have children. Why should the rest of us feel guilty about her choices in life?
Click to expand...

You don't have to feel guilty about anything. There's no compulsion here. You don't even have to feel aware.

This woman is making the best deal she can and still thinks it could be better. Her letter is addressed to the people who benefit from her poor deal. If you are not in that group, move along. There's nothing to see.

If however, you buy paper towels at Walmart or get an Egg McMuffin on the way to work, you just shaved a few pennies off your cost of living, because our modern economy has found a way to tie up large blocks of labor and then squeeze out as much as they need, a little at a time. If a company is open 24 hours a day, why not schedule a person from 6 to 12 in the morning and then 4 to 8 in the evening? Who wouldn't like a 4 hour lunch break.

In the name of corporate profit and consumer demand, we have made labor a commodity, which is to say, we have made people a commodity. While we were making it easier for corporations to collect large amounts of money and use it to push down the cost of labor and supplies, we also made it more difficult for labor to collect into large amounts.

We will let the buying of labor be commodified, but not the selling of it. A corporation can treat their employees as a commodity, but the workers are not allowed this privilege.

If things like this and a host of troubles more does not bother you, give it no more thought. This message was not intended for you.
 
I would be much more sympathetic to Ms. Gilbert if I didn't think she was embellishing her hardships. She talks about not being able to carry many groceries in her backpack which implies walking or public transportation but then says she has a car. She says she's not going to give up her solid internet connection because it's a necessity but later complains that she has take her kids to the library for them to access the internet. Low paid employees are also the easiest to replace, has her job-hopping been a result of lay-off or was it due to cause?

I'm not saying life isn't hard for some people. My life as a young adult wasn't easy, my mother had a hard time raising 4 kids after my dad split, I know people today who have very hard lives. Ms. Gilbert may have a hard life and I'm not against giving help to those who need it but trying to pull my emotional heartstrings while at the same time setting off my BS detector is not a good way to get me to take you seriously.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
I think that the living wage should be based on what a single person would need. If someone has children, then the government should subsidize them for the kids based on their income levels, but the rate which businesses pay shouldn't factor that sort of thing in.
Click to expand...
Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.
 
AthenaAwakened said:
ksen said:
Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?
Click to expand...

Good question.

Maybe eventually someone will answer it with an answer and not questions designed to avoid it.
Click to expand...

Why should businesses be required to pay a living wage? I think the onus here is on those of you demanding they must.
 
Derec said:
Tom Sawyer said:
I think that the living wage should be based on what a single person would need. If someone has children, then the government should subsidize them for the kids based on their income levels, but the rate which businesses pay shouldn't factor that sort of thing in.
Click to expand...
Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.
Click to expand...

The problem there is that he children didn't ask to be born, and by society not supporting them, we would be neglecting citizens in need, put there though no fault of their own. You may think that by not supporting these children through child tax credits and the like you may dissuade other parents from making poor decisions, but is it worth those children being neglected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom