Hacker News Reader

Comment by anotherhue | Hacker News Reader

Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?

View on HN

How would increased unemployment benefits assist a worker below the poverty line? Unemployment payments are below minimum wage, and by definition cannot be supplemental income.

It would allow the worker to quit and search for new work, which can be difficult to do while holding down many jobs (strict absence policies, etc.)

A simpler solution to #2 would be to raise minimum wages.

Cue inflation.

A better solution is to tax capital gains and corporate income at a rate that is closer to personal income taxes so that everyone pays their fair share.

I think the US has enough tax money it just needs to use it more efficiently. If you look at the government revenue per capita of the US it isn't that far off from Germany or Japan. Construction in Japan certainly has a higher price floor than in the US so there is no excuse there, and the various government offices in Japan operate quickly and efficiently despite offering much lower pay and worse hours, in a much stricter work environment.

Basically, I think its a culture problem. You could give the US 10 trillion a year in Taxes rather than 3 but the dmv is still going to have a line, take 3 hours to get through and have a rude morbidly obese woman behind the counter.

I agree that there's a culture problem, if the line at the DMV (which, who goes there these days, so much can be pre-handled online) is the worst government interaction you can think of, you're doing pretty well for yourself.

It is not, and was not intended to be an example of the worst. Actually the exact opposite.

The DMV is intended as an example of a low complexity, low risk task that should be easily done well, and despite that, is usually done horribly. Thats my point.

If the government cant get a dmv right, why would I expect them to be able to handle anything else.

> Doesn't raise minimum wage

> Still have massive inflation

That's a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Adjust the wages by inflation every year, it's pretty simple.

I'm not against higher corporate tax rates, but that's a separate problem.

And devalue our currency against every other nation? No, thanks. Input costs to business are often priced in the international market. You'd just have a weaker economy. There's no such thing as good inflation

That's ok, they'll just find another tax carve out.

VAT is the real answer. If people had to pay consumption taxes, the issue would go away. You have to spend the money somewhere.

People cannot live on $7.25 an hour in the US, and the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare. Inflation skyrocketed in the past 5 years; minimum wage has not changed for 15 years. So, no correlation there.

The corporate tax rate should be increased, as well as taxes on high-earners, as well as the minimum wage. Capital gains taxes for individuals with 1M+ of assets may be considered, but is unprecedented in US tax history, no?

It's always interesting to watch how so many people oppose increasing the minimum wage (which stagnates since decades) while at the same time opposing increasing the taxation of corporations and billionaires (which goes down since decades). It's like, the society was created for corporations, not for regular people... and no, billionaires are in reality not taxed like regular people so let's not even try this theoretical argument.

It's called capitalism, not laborism. What's weird is you'd think that labor would vote a bit differently.

too many temporarily embarrassed millionaires in the US.

(or rather, not that people on the bottom think they’ll be on the top someday, but they’ve come to identify with the ruling class, and bought into the arguments that we can’t have nice things because of inflation or moral hazard or whatever else.)

I guess? Corporations now throw hissy-fits in response to this and pass on the costs as loudly as possible to the consumer-voters.

In theory yes, in a global economy you're just dooming further sectors of the economy to painful death in competition with developing countries.

I read that as "We should allow paying developing country salaries in a developed country to allow competition".

-Free trade

-Decent wages

-Everyone has a job

Choose any two.

Health care seems like the bigger root problem. It limits job mobility because people get tied to their employer’s coverage.

How's that working for California food workers, or delivery drivers on Seattle?

I would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.

There is also the in-between where these benefits allow you to quit and then look for another job. Something that can be hard to do if you are working long hours as you'd need to take days off that may or may not be approved depending on the company you are working for.

Exactly, I think that situation should be better handled and would make the playfield much more level.

People who sit at home doing nothing tend to get very depressed and ‘self medicate’ (drink, smoke, eat, etc) to fight that depression. I like to believe that most people really don’t want to get to that point and the reason they quit is not to basically slow-suicide. I don’t know about the numbers, but as I saw in my life, most people want to keep busy as they don’t know what to do with themselves. Sure there are exceptions and it might be different per country; would be interesting to see stats if there are any.

Yeah, that's why I said, with hesitation, that it's worse to be couch potato, than doing a perhaps pointless job. At least something is taking up part of your day and you're putting in the effort. I experienced it myself, I saw it in people around me, of you're out of the workforce for a long time you will have very thought time going back. And if you're in bad place financially, mentally, or both, you will absolutely sink sitting at home...

It's all terrible working conditions and awful bosses until you have too much free time and have to start contemplating the meaning of your own life. Then you REALLY have hard work to do or succumb to the impending nihilism.

You seem to be assuming that action is beneficial when in fact, that is the polar opposite.

Only anxieties cause toil - somebody who is at peace and relaxed, is going to rest and play just like children do when their basic food and care needs are met (possible to do with existing worldwide resources)

If everybody sat around doing “nothing”, we would be better off than we are with everybody out there trying to make their own little mini dictatorship, which is what the current state of the world mentality for success is

Your mentality is why the world is so terrible

How is action not beneficial? It's about what you have your focus on. If you're in 2 week long binge watching session of latest Netflix show, you won't be grinding leetcode.

I agree, and for someone who is on couch watching TV whole day every day, thought of stopping that and finding new soul sucking job is bound to cause more anexity, than for the person replacing one trash job with the other...

I agree it would be better doing nothing than doing wrong things, but you can't have progress without actually doing something. And if you're doing something you will also do mistakes. I absolutely do not approve greedy employees and people leaving their best life years for someone's latest BMW, but I also understand that it is inevitable there will be players like that in the market. What we need to do is keep going - acquire wealth we need for our day to day life and family, secure our future, both financially, but also through activism in form of rights and benefits for working class.

You seem to deduce quite a lot about me from a comment that you read and understood in light of your own frustration.

I just consider it lesser of two evils, never said it's better or should be that way ¯\_(:/)_/¯

> a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion

This is not a description of human behavior, but of inanimate objects in Newtonian physics. I'm sure we could find a way to make a description of stellar evolution sound applicable here too, but that doesn't make it so.

> someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc

Have you met anyone who works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.

> This is not a description of human behavior, but of inanimate objects in Newtonian physics. I'm sure we could find a way to make a description of stellar evolution sound applicable here too, but that doesn't make it so.

It was always easier for me, and all friends I know, to change jobs and upgrade while you're already in the workforce. After university, layoffs, sabaticals, even long vacations, it's kinda hard to get back "into it".

> Have you met anyone who works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.

Yea but question was couch potato vs underpaid worker, not a temporarily unemployed person. Definition of couch potato in popular culture is a lazy person that watches TV, not concerned with much. I know more people who lived on CC between jobs, but still moved to new positions, than couch potatoes who got an actual job after that.

> Yea but question was couch potato vs underpaid worker, not a temporarily unemployed person. Definition of couch potato in popular culture is a lazy person that watches TV, not concerned with much. I know more people who lived on CC between jobs, but still moved to new positions, than couch potatoes who got an actual job after that.

I don't understand your disagreement with what I said, while simultaneously agreeing with the other comment:

> There is also the in-between where these benefits allow you to quit and then look for another job. Something that can be hard to do if you are working long hours as you'd need to take days off that may or may not be approved depending on the company you are working for.

We're saying the same thing, I think. Only I'm not concerned with the supposed existence of "couch potatoes."

I'm not concerned about any of the above, it's just how things are.

Well, if the "couch potatoes" live better than the exploited worker, then the corps are a greater negative for society. They would be somehow gaslighting people into having worst lives than they can have.

If an overexploited worker has a better life than someone unemployed, then the only moral problem is calling them "couch potatoes" in the first place :)

The greatest threat is a couch potato who is going into a job they hate to bring everyone down with them.

People talk about the 1x engineer vs the 10x engineer, but less is said about the -5x engineer who drags everybody down with them and makes them hate work.

I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent. It's really just not possible. McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-walmart-mcdon...

> Around 70% of people on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps and Medicaid work full-time, the watchdog found, and the majority of these worked for larger companies with 100 or more staff.

So no, you can be gainfully employed in the US and still be on food stamps.

That article is several years old and out of date. The poster you replied to would have been referring to current wages. Low income wages have made the largest percentage gains of any bracket since 2020.

I don't think anything you're saying supports the argument "I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent." So what's the point?

It is true that the parent comment was not nuanced and very likely not true. I think it's also true that linking an article from 2020 is a possibly misleading response, since low-income wages have made a sizable jump since then.

Pedantic point but you can be above the federal poverty level while still qualifying for Medicaid/SNAP.

The Federal Povery Level for 2024 is $15,060. Assuming 1,720 hours a year for full-time employment, that's just under $8.76/hr.

The federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr. So, the ultimate takeaway is in most states in the US working full time employment at the minimum wage of the state you will be below the FPL.

One important thing to think about though is what percentage of low wage full-time jobs are actually still at the federal minimum wage?

Add a couple of kids (single parent) and the picture looks much worse.

And, as far as things go for the other 30%, I've known people on SNAP and Medicaid who need to very carefully limit how many hours they get, and even decline raises, for fear of edging over a threshold that causes them to lose support and end up even worse off, economically.

It strikes me as a great example of a policy incentivizing (enforcing, really) the very thing it's ostensibly supposed to discourage. These folks have dreams and want better jobs, and they're often deeply ashamed of being on welfare, but if you're supporting a family your overriding moral imperative is to make sure everyone is fed and healthy and that trumps everything else.

It's so incredibly stressful to live in a society where people have been raised on a Calvinist worldview that teaches that it's immoral to be unwealthy.

You're very confused.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-mo...

I'm not confused. It is not possible to have no dependents and be below the poverty line working 40 hours

In my country, the easiest way to work 40 hours and still live in poverty is to move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment.

> move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment

I'm not sure which way you feel about this, but I'll emphasize that everyone else in the city is completely dependent on people making this life choice (or a related one, where they live outside the city in a stifling suburb, pay for it with years of their life spent commuting, and simultaneously lower everyone's health and quality of life by driving a car).

I am curious about how you think a $290/week (minimum wage) budget works.

Can you give me a breakdown of how a family of three can survive off of this? I figure if you can't see how anyone in America could be below water on a minimum wage salary, you must have a good idea of how to survive on a shoestring budget.

Here, I'll make it simple.

At approximately $1,260/month, how would much would you allocate to each category?

Rent/Mortgage:

Groceries:

Transportation:

Utilities:

Healthcare:

Personal / Misc:

Entertainment:

Debt repayment:

Savings:

Who pays $7.25? People quote that antiquated law as if it's a mandated wage. Fast food pays $15-20

Five states have not adopted a state minimum wage: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have a minimum wage below $7.25 per hour. In all seven of these states, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour applies.

Most other states have higher minimums, but those in most cases have not kept up with inflation.

But in virtually all states you're broke af working for minimum.

You can look here at McDonalds jobs in small towns across Louisiana (randomly taken from your list). Avoiding cities because pay is higher there. Even in places like Pineville LA (pop 14k), they are starting fry cooks at double the federal minimum.

https://www.indeed.com/q-mcdonalds-application-l-louisiana-j...

A single parent of three kids is considered a household size of 4, with a poverty line at 30k. That is basically the median full time salary in several professions in the retail and food industry.

Right. Exactly my point. You've got to have several dependents as a single parent to go back below the poverty line. With one or no dependents, it's virtually impossible.

Your original claim was that it requires an absurd amount of dependents. Having 2 dependents is rather common, and 3 not unheard of either. There are 10 million single parent households in the US, and 36% of them are in poverty. I am pretty sure that at least 1/3 of these parents work full time. So the number of single parent households at poverty line where parent works full time is probably 1 million or more.

I think you are speaking of the federal poverty line and they are talking about the ordinary definition of poverty. Nobody making the actual federal poverty line is surviving without help most places.

Plenty of people are living in poverty whilest working full time.

> McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line

where the hell in America is that true? "well above" -- definitely not.

Federal minimum wage : $7.25 per hour

40h work week: $290 per week

52 weeks per year: $15,080.00

Federal Poverty level for 2024(family of 1): $15,060

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fp...

McDonalds average pay(Crew Member): $13.03 per hour

https://www.indeed.com/cmp/McDonald's/salaries/Crew-Member

40 hour work week: $521.2 per week

52 weeks per year: $27.102.40

Average McDonalds pay for crew member puts you above Federal Poverty Level for a family of 3 ($25,820).

If you take the family of 1 numbers, you are $12,042.4 above poverty. Almost double. I think that qualifies for well above.

I also don't think it is good living but take it up with the federal government if you want to talk about where the Poverty Line and Inflation numbers come from, since they are the ones who like to screw with it to make themselves look good.

Edit: I missed the part about requiring an absurd number of dependents, that isn't true. With one dependent, numbers don't look that bad but having 2(family of 3) you are basically living hand to mouth with no savings.

Spotted the person who's never been a retail/fast food wage slave. You don't get 40 hours. At best you'll get 34 or whatever makes it so you aren't classified as full time. And that's a good week. If corporate is trying to save hours, you might get 8 or 10 that week. You'll need a second job, obviously, but given that there's no set schedule, you'll spend even more time trying to coordinate the two.

I have, worked as a cashier for a couple years. I know they never let you get to 40 hours, if you do then they have to start offering benefits.

However, that wasn't part of the exercise. Grandparent stated that: > McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line

I decided to run the numbers rather than go with gut feeling of no way. Figured I would share since I did the work.

Grandparent was only haft right since they also state you would need a crazy amount of dependents to put you at Federal Poverty Level. If you had 2 dependents, you are above but living hand to mouth and one accident away from povert.

That’s a fair point about it merely mirroring the grandparent’s exercise, and looking back on it my post had an unnecessarily antagonistic start. But I do believe it’s worth telling people that crappy jobs are crappy for reasons besides pure hourly pay; they have other features that are both demeaning and austere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com