(08-22-2022 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 11:52 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  e possible to afford basic necessities with a minimum-wage fast food job? Is that what you're saying?

Yes. Working 40 hours per week at a minimum wage job would not cut it without government assistance. One would have to find a way to stretch $1,210 gross through an entire month on housing, food, transportation, and other necessities to survive in this country.

So if the government had not distorted the labor market to make it possible, no one would be attempting to make a living as a fast-food worker in the first place.

Quote:I very much understand the concept that you and Ham talk about in regards to whom these jobs are supposed to employ - but reality doesn't match that proposition. That proposition falls apart quickly when one realizes that McDonald's is still open at noon on a weekday in the fall when every teenager is in school.

It's not just teenagers looking for these jobs. The world does not consist solely of adults who need full-time living wages and high school kids.

Quote:But regardless of that, I'd have hoped we could have come to a consensus on the idea that someone willing and able to put in 40 hours of work in a week could survive on their wages without government aid. But, as Owl#s pointed to, perhaps the plan is to rely on government aid to make up the difference, which is less ideal to me but closer to the system we have.

What "plan"? Jobs never intended to pay a living wage should never have been subsidized in the first place. Your solution is to solve the problem created by government intervention with more government intervention. The jobs would then disappear entirely, replaced by bankruptcy or automation.