There’s Not A Single U.S. County Where A Minimum Wage Worker Can Support A Family

[eridani]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/11/theres-not-a-single-u-s-county-where-a-minimum-wage-worker-can-support-a-family/

This may not be surprising to anyone, but there is not a single county in the United States in which a minimum wage earner can support a family. Not one. Despite efforts made in some states and various cities — like Seattle, which passed legislation last year that will raise the minimum wage to $15 for many employees by January 1, 2017 — a family cannot fully survive making just the minimum.

While Republicans actively work to demonize the very idea of a minimum wage increase with some, like 2016 presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, even pushing for a complete eradication of the minimum wage altogether, we have a serious problem in the United States that persists no matter how much one may try to deny it. Republicans love to complain about the “takers” eating up all that sweet, sweet SNAP money — and they have no qualms with cutting benefits to low-income families — but this only exacerbates the problem presented by those filthy poors demanding all the luxuries in life (like eating meals regularly and having running water).

Last year, the Washington Post reported that President Obama’s proposed $10.10 minimum wage would decrease federal food stamp spending by a whopping $4.6 billion. According to Democrats, this increase from the current $7.25 per hour would help life 9.2 percent of food stamp recipients out of the morass of extreme poverty, allowing them to at least purchase food without relying on “handouts,” as conservatives like to say.

[SheilaT]

1. I'm not sure minimum wage was ever good enough to support a family.

When I first started to work, minimum wage was $1.25/hour. Not long after it was raised to $1.65/hour, which was a pretty good improvement. But I was single, and lived in a relatively low cost of living city, and I could just manage to support myself. I didn't own a car -- I walked to work -- had the most basic phone service possible. This is back before anyone but the rich had credit cards, so I either made sure I had enough cash to pay for things, or did without. I often bought clothes on layaway.

And all of this was back in the supposed golden age when a good union job could support a family. I want to say that I didn't experience that. Maybe my dad simply didn't earn enough money, despite having a union job. Maybe there were too many of us kids, six in all. I don't know, but had my mom not gone back to work (she was a nurse) after the youngest was about four or so, we would not have survived. Even with the two wage earners, things were VERY tight. My parents made sure we never went hungry, but there wasn't much at Christmas, and had it not been for hand-me-downs and second hand stores, I'm not sure how well clothed we'd have been.

[Warpy]

2. Yes, it was. In the mid 50s-early 70s, it was set to support a family of four

on what was called a "thrifty" budget: renting instead of owning one's home, driving one old car (if no public transportation), buying a market basket of goods that contained no convenience or party foods, taking the kids camping for cheap vacations once a year. It was above the poverty line.

It was the best deal workers ever had, so of course the plutocracy hated it. It also contributed to the longest sustained boom in any country's history.

In the late 70s, it simply wasn't raised to keep pace with the inflation caused by OPEC tripling the price of oil. Neither were regular wages, but they were hiked a little faster than the minimum.

The New Deal recognized that plutocrats would drive wages down as much as they could, so they established the minimum to prevent it and stimulate the demand side enough to keep the economy running.

Now it's not enough to support a single worker in safe housing, with nutritious food, and the ability to save for crises.

Conservatives in both parties are pure, fulminating evil. If you ever doubt that, look at what they've done to minimum wage.

[Fumesucker]

3. +$15

[eridani]

4. I agree. My MIL was abandoned by her husband in 1965.

She got a minimum wage doing Xeroxing, and was able to move into a cheap "rent to buy' house then valued at $7000. She supported DH's two youngest siblings until they were able to go to college (one via the Navy).

She sold the house to us for $20K under its assessed valuation in 1982 ($55K). Just got our property valuation and land and house are now worth $166K. No way in hell someone on today's minimum wage could buy it, even at $15/hour.

[SheilaT]

5. Maybe it was supposed to be set to support a family of four,

but I can tell you, that as a single person back then, I could barely support myself on minimum wage.

I do understand there are certain economies of scale for two, three, or four persons, but I can assure you, it would have been extremely difficult to support more than one or two persons on minimum wage back then.

[npk]

6. Excellent job Warpy

Great info. But I get angry just reading it. So sad what has happened to out working class.

[ileus]

7. It's not supposed to...MW was for high school kids.

Working untrained no skill jobs...When I was a kid it was fast food, grocery stores, and teller positions.

We should have never let America get to the point where ADULTS work for minimum wage.

[Facility Inspector]

8. My first job as a teenager was $3.35 an hour

I had to give my check to my parents and they gave me running around money when I needed it.

then they raised it to $4.25. By that time I had a job at a local department store in the luggage department while I was in college.

I hired in at $4.25. When I asked if they would bump my pay accordingly, they said no. I felt kinda ripped off by that.

So I went to the other mall and got a job in the luxury store cash office. Seems my knowledge of Hartmann luggage paid off (they asked me to play sell something in the interview, so I pretended I was selling high end luggage to them).

I started at $7.25 with that job.