Comment by stinkytaco | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stinkytaco | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1. 7.25 is not enough to live on. And the ability to pay less with the assumption that there will be tips does not make it better. Especially considering that in many states you can require tip-pooling, effectively removing the stated point of tips in the first place (to motivate better service). Nor does this really address the problem of tipping as a cultural phenomenon, it just doesn't really need to exist.

2. The "teach better money management skills" has really nothing to do with this problem, but is continually trotted out as some sort of solution. If you don't have enough money, there's no "managing" it. This isn't an avocado toast problem, it's a wage issue.

Additionally, the incentives are a moving target. For example, with the federal government threatening to end forgiveness plans, can you blame someone for not taking advantage of the option with the potential they will be stuck with the bag, plus interest? Same goes for home ownership incentives, charitable giving incentives, and so on. If the incentive could be gone one day due to the massively complicated and political game that is the tax code, I can hardly blame someone who doesn't have money for a financial adviser for not taking advantage of those programs.

I think you misunderstood what I said.

I made no claim that $7.25/hr is a livable wage. That is the current federal minimum. Employers are required to pay the minimum, if they aren't, they're breaking the law.

Money management is certainly no silver bullet, however, it plays a role. If you net $13k/year then you have to manage that money so you don't spend more than $13k/year. Most would agree that it is extremely tough to live on $13k/year. No matter the difficulty the money still has to be managed.

In my student loan example, if you have a loan schedule of 30 years @ 6% you will pay $46k in interest on a $40k loan when only paying the minimum of $240. That same loan if paid off @ $440/mo, nets you $33k over that time period. Here you would manage your money so that you can pay as much as possible on that loan as often as possible.

Making more money doesn't solve money issues, it just covers them up. Saying that there nothing to be done because the amount spent is greater than the amount earned seems rather foolish. I'm not saying that in any given situation there exists an outcome where you can manage spending less than you earn, but managing money wisely will always improve the situation.

$7.25 is not meant to be enough to live on. People were not meant to make a living flipping burgers. Its an entry level job. Minimum wage is where you start, not where you end.

Minimum wage is designed to be enough to live on.

The problem is that calculating such an amount is more than tricky. Consider that inflation changes "constantly" or whether newly enacted bills are factored in. From my quick research, it appears as though the affordable care act made the assumption that minimum wage already factored in mandatory health insurance.

Now consider what does it mean to say a person is "living." Are you living if you have a roof over your head and food in your stomach? Is the food being considered, the same meal morning noon and night, or a variety of foods? If you are making minimum wage are you eligible for SNAP (a.k.a.food stamps)?

What about access to the Internet, OTA television, radio broadcasts, or entertainment of some sort? Biologically none of these are needed to live, but I bet an argument could be made.

I agree with you that no one should work for minimum wage, always the maximum. I think simply raising the minimum wage amount is treating symptoms of bigger issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com