In, to quote Ken White, "pluck-my-banjo" Texas, that's a perfectly fine and livable sum. A dollar or two raise and you can probably start saving up for a house realistically. $14/hr is kingly.
Amazon warehouses are usually not in banjo-playing rural areas, but rather as close to major towns as is economically feasible for Amazon's rent bill.
This is neither a basic income nor a federal minimum wage problem. This is a lack of competing opportunities for minimally skilled workers problem. If these same workers had realistic job opportunities that paid well, then Amazon would have to raise wages (and pass some of that onto the consumers, but, that's relatively nothing).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfi...
Can you leave the mock disgust behind? You probably live in an urban/suburban area just like the rest of us, yet your lecturing us.
$14 an hour is not as bad as you think. Median nursing salary in England = 23000 pounds = 32300 usd. So the median amazon warehouse worker makes 82.5% of what the median nurse makes in the U.K. Is that really so bad?
A lot of people here have preconceived notions about the living conditions of non-coastal areas and, to be frank, it gets old. OP is correct to lecture people because they are completely fucking correct in most cases.
I made that amount when I was in college, in the DC area, and most certainly survived just fine. Had I lived more rural in an area where entry level homes are <200k and not 600k+, that would of gone much farther.
And the banjo-playing is mostly a joke, especially in Texas. That being said, as an avid hiker, I spend a significant chunk of my time in places best labeled as "Nowhere, really".
Show me one person in this country with two kids who makes $14/hr and doesn't feel like they're struggling. College is easy, I survived on <$9/hr in college but you don't see me pretending that what is supportive of a college lifestyle and what is supportive of normal people with normal lives are the same thing.
>Had I lived more rural in an area where entry level homes are <200k and not 600k+, that would of gone much farther.
It would've gone a bit further but certainly not 'much.'
>That being said, as an avid hiker, I spend a significant chunk of my time in places best labeled as "Nowhere, really".
Somehow I think even you realize that using 'I hike' as a proxy for 'I have familiarity with rural areas' is pretty lame.
Of course, a decent house in that area runs $80-100k, whereas the same house in the area I live outside of Boston would cost $400k, and you couldn't buy a property with an equivalent amount of land attached at any price in the Bay area.
My son is making about $30K a year ($2000 a month) and I helped him do his budget so I know what his expenses are:
Rent - $600
Car note - $300
Car Insurance - $250
Utilities - $350
That leaves him about $500 a month for "everything else".
Yes that puts him on the edge and thanks to the ACA he's still covered under our insurance until he turns 26 and if he needs a car repair we help him.
Two conclusions:
I think we should have universal health care as a nation.
If we had better mass transit, people wouldn't need cars and it would make finding a job easier.
According to the gross up calculator at psycheckcity.com he would need to make around $16.50/hour or $34000 a year to have enough cushion for things that happen. Strangely enough, that was also the salary I needed 20 years ago before I could make it on my own without asking my parents for help. I made that my first year out of college as a computer operator.
This is in metro Atlanta not podunk nowhere USA.
And if you want good versions of these things, you're more likely to find them in coastal urban cities, where basic cost of living (food and housing) is extremely high.
Remarking that "oh they'll be fine over there" when people are fleeing there for better resources is consigning a segment of our population to a permanent underclass status.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/17/the-s...
You've got to get somewhere around 30-40 miles out of the city to buy a house on $14 an hour (assuming the 20% of income rule of thumb).
Kivas are nice and all, but they can't pick and they definitely can't stow. They could probably move pallets, but couldn't palletize, and having them run around the facilities at the necessary speed dragging a train of pallets would be a safety hazard.
They are really good at reading QR codes and turning at 90 degree angles, though.
There are places in India where they pay 100 men pennies to dig a trench. Sure, they could buy a machine so 1 person could do the work of 100, but if the machine costs 100k and the guy who is trained to operate it makes 10 an hour, the payoff time is too long to justify. If the guys digging the trench demand 5 an hour, the barrier to the investment goes down significantly.
This is why, if a 15 dollar minimum wage is passed nation wide, you will never order from a person at McDonald's again... and any niche restaurant that does use people will cost significantly more. A large business like McDonalds benefits from this because they can absorb the cost. A small business can't, so big corporation's have less competition and can make even larger profits because they have less downward pressure on their prices.
With enough money, they could probably reduce the amount of warehouse workers needed.
Other facility jobs, like picking and stowing, run up against vision and fine motor skill problems that turn out to be really difficult for AI and robotics to solve. They'll be automated eventually, but I don't think it will be soon. I might be wrong, though.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-robots-ikea/fla...