this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
341 points (97.0% liked)
Work Reform
9966 readers
18 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is very unlikely a single person is having a comfortable life in San Diego on $80k.
No shit...
It's state averages so it's not going to be enough for the most expensive areas in any of the states. That's how averages work
That is a good point. $65k in any city/suburb in Washington State probably puts you in a one bedroom apartment. Maybe two if it’s older or shittier. You’re living but certainly not thriving.
I think the article suggests living wages to live like a king.
The criteria they used is that "50% of income is used to cover necessities, such as housing and utility costs, 30% goes toward discretionary spending, and 20% is left for savings or investments.".
I don't know anybody who makes under six figures and saves or invests 20% of their income, and 30% discretionary spending seems like a LOT.
If the article were more realistic, the living wage amounts would be significantly lower than reported. As stated, it would leave people very comfortable.
That may be the key, though. I'm not American, but was looking at Canadian household figures, and I'm seeing something like 40% of food spending going to restaurants! "Communications" being over $2600 a year ($216 / month for phone and internet?????)! Private transportation being over $11,000 a year (10x what public transportation would cost). Drugs and alcohol accounts for nearly $2000 a year with gambling being another $200.
Sacrifice doesn't mean to be poor, but it does mean that people need to spend wisely. If done right, you could live an even better life while spending less!
To that, I wonder what the real cost of living would be if people were more reasonable with their spendings.
This would go a long way to help people get control of their money.
I'm very fortunate to have access to "pay-as-you-go" insurance, so at most I pay around $250 a year (two drivers) for up to 1000km, and every additional 1000km is around $50-60.
Since I've been able to move much of my car driving to cycling, I'm saving in gas and insurance. Easily $3000+ a year.
Even if someone isn't physically able to cycle, investing in an ebike to offset some of their driving can also have an impact on their wallet.
But if you're stuck with car payments, a rigid insurance plan, and are forced to buy gas often, then it's a very tough situation.
Haha. I don't think what they meant was to actually live like a poor person, but to be frugal with your spending. This can have a profound effect on how much money you keep!
Ah, i misread the poor person comment! Spend however you like, but there's no reason to spend more than you need to.
Peachtree City is delightfully unique. Thanks for sharing that.
Part of me wonders "why not just ride a bike?", but hey, "anything but a car" also works for me 😂
Cooking is labor, intensive labor at that. Someone working 50 hours a week is going to have a lot less energy to dedicate towards cooking their own food, and will thus likely eat out more.
Truly, I don’t think encouraging people to cook at home is a viable solution. We need low cost, high quality, publicly owned and operated community kitchens.
Cooking for one is highly inefficient, both in time and resources. Cooking for 500 is much better in both.
Hey, even though I love to cook, I'm also SUPER lazy (some might just call it efficient) when it comes to making meals.
For one, investing just a few hundred dollars (or much less if buying used) can get you a pressure cooker and/or a bread maker, and/or a rice cooker, and/or a slow cooker.
Any of these items, especially the pressure cooker, can save a considerable amount of time - most meals are simply "drop in your ingredients and walk away". It can take less time to make dinner and clean up than it would take to order out.
I'm not exaggerating.
Longer, more elaborate meals are often made on the weekend, so we aren't missing out on favourites like pizza. Even then, I won't spend more than 20-30 minutes in the kitchen making a large meal. LOL
Being able to save money on food is a skill, and it's a skill that everyone should know.
Even making batches of food ahead of time (I do this with beans) can save a considerable amount of money per month, without taking up more than a few minutes of effort.
All I'm saying is that if people are struggling, but they are spending a huge amount of money on restaurants, then making meals at home is a reasonable, easy way to save money.
Hell, even if you really don't want to put any time into cooking from scratch, premade meals are going to be cheaper than a restaurant meal.
Laziness breeds efficiency, totally with you there. I guess my comment was more pre-empting the inevitable “well if people just ate more at home they wouldn’t be poor” response than it was directed at what you said. I agree that cooking for yourself is way more cash efficient, and using things like crockpots or insta-pots can reduce the time commitment also.
It’s still a struggle for people who work hard labor or any really draining job, and get home exhausted while still having household chores to manage. It’s also still less materially efficient than a centralized food facility, even a private restaurant. Or those who never had any model from which to learn to cook and are intimidated by it, though that could be fixed with proper educational opportunities. Also, for those living alone, the choices are often buy a couple days worth of food every couple days, make big batches of food and eat the same thing every day for a week, or risk food spoilage and waste.
I think individuals cooking their meals is a good way to manage under the current situation, but I like to conceive of better alternatives, and the efficiency gains in terms of time, labor hours, and waste of a community kitchen or pantry are too large for me not to advocate for them anytime I see an opportunity. There would likely be added intrapersonal and community benefits from the increased socialization also. I hope to one day be able to open one locally if I can ever afford to buy a commercial space so as to minimize monthly costs, but I think it would benefit much more from local governmental support and communal ownership and management.
It’s averaged over the state. So there are places in California where you can, just not in the major cities.
Which means commuting longer to most jobs within major cities. 🤷🏿♂️
This study is averages for entire states, and therefore useless. They should have done it by county.
Italy, 22k / year after taxes and health insurance ( public health so taxes ) . 6k / year , 2 room rent. 150-220k, you buy 3 room apartment near city center , medium city. No property taxes on your first house you own. A lot of people complain about cost of houses and rents.
What's the salary before taxes? 40k?
30 k $ ( 27k €)