My week living on the minimum wage

But why should they forgo meals, which are untaxed? As I see it, food is abundant precisely because it IS untaxed. It's the taxes on everything else that drives people into poverty: property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, health insurance premiums caused by government regulations and insurance fees, etc.

Food is quite abundant in this nation due to its non-taxable status, which is why we have a lot of poor, yet fat people. Of course, a lot of peoople eat out, but that food is only taxed as an end product. And why skip meals at home when most, if not all of it isn't taxed? Want skinny people? Tax food.

A lot of people on this thread didn't seem notice that in the article, the woman DID have a husband and that this was an "experiment" to see how she could live on minimum wage. I'd just point out that a person on minimum wage wouldn't be able to afford a car to shop around as she claims to have done in the article.

Food IS taxed in NC.

Also good points. Those who are very low on the income level get lots of government support in food, medical and day care...

Facts from the article:

1. Work - Nowhere in the article does the author indicate where she actually "worked" at minimum wage for the week in question. Withon this pertinant fact, there is reason to believe that her minimum wage experience was a "simulation" more than a real-world event. There are places of employement that permit overtime (usually required) or tips to increase one's take-home pay beyond minimum wage.

2. Wage - $5.15/ hr @ 8hrs (no overtime or tips, see work above). If she "worked" two more hours per day, that's another $15.45 per day. Another way of looking at it is, it is $77.25 per week or a 36% increase over her base pay of $206.

3. Welfare - Based on the USDA / FNS website and the data provided in this article while the author was working at minimum-wage she was eligible for a minimum of $144 in food stamps (not including an other government subsidies on the Federal, state and local levels) which will increase her "take".

So let's review:

Weekly gross pay: $206
2hr Overtime: $77
Foodstamps: $144
Total: $427 (more than double original gross pay)

These whine, moan and hate capitalism articles only appeal to those who vote 100% rat.

They have zero impact with conservatives and most moderates. We know that they are trotted out for every election to justify the welfare lifestyle and a try at more more welfare benefits each week/month/year.

The other big stories will be those caught with massive hospital bills.

Believe me, we're in agreement over the distortions caused by taxation. You might even say that the intrusion of the tax bite is like the old saw about the elephant in the living room that nobody talks about. Politeness will never address unpleasant realities.

My point (rather over the top and foaming) was that this article is such classic piece of propaganda. Like a clock, this kind of 'investigative journalism' will continue to roll over the pages of the nation's papers and across the screens until the election. If the RAT's win, this sort of thing will cease, unless there is need to jinn up popular support for another round of the bogus RAT tactic of jacking up the minimum wage. As things stand now, this puff-piece aimed at raising the minimum wage is to garner RAT votes - not actually improve anything. To do that, the writer would need to understand a little about economics. Even so, the merits of this journalist and her thought process are worthless. For example:

"My Week of Living on Minimum Wage"

How about my week of having to wear a size 6 dress? Then we'd all be treated to a screed about bulimia, anorexia and the wicked advertisers and publishers of women's magazines and how they control the mind and life of every woman in America. Obviously, the notion of adaptations, solutions and long-term efforts of the individual never enters into the calculation as the article reveals later on.

"I've spent most of my 20 years in journalism writing about the struggles of the less fortunate."

This phrase is so pregnant with assumptions, contradictions and piety that I can hardly stand to type the words. This is precisely the same dreck that was paraded about the homeless under Reagan.

"But living on $206 a week…was a sobering and enlightening experience. I recommend it to…every politician in the state as they consider their vote to increase the state's paltry minimum wage"

The goal of the article. Of course, to my mind, $206 dollars a week sounds about right for this woman's writing. I would support legislation to mandate a realistic wage for journalists - certainly not the big-bucks that many of them receive.

"First, she cried…"I don't want to be a hobo," my 9-year-old daughter told me."

The real heart of the article. The emotional reasoning of a 9-year old girl.

"You don't have to be Einstein to see instantly that trying to make ends meet on minimum wage is not about being a better budgeter."

You don't have to be Einstein to see instantly that trying to make ends meet on minimum wage is going to require more than a 40-hour a week commitment. Grafting the unrealistic middle-class notion of a 40-hour week into this equation is specious, at best.

"It means better nutrition, more time with your kids and simple decency. It's also good economics. People who earn slightly higher wages are spending every penny."

Three things here. First, raising the minimum wage will elevate the prices of all goods in time since union wages are tied to the minimum (a sweetheart deal between the RATs and labor) and most other wages and salaries will eventually come into line to reflect the increased money supply circulation for whatever amount of goods and services exist. Secondly, the article assumes that more dollars will result in behaviors that the middle-class readers will endorse. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the false belief that when basic needs are met everyone will become model citizens. This hopeful fallacy undergirds most socialist reasoning. Third, as income goes up, like getting a second job, so will the tax bite. In any event, the taxation continues drain the resources whether they work 40, 60 or 80 hours a week. Only when they go on the dole does the system begin paying out. Of course, the article isn't about how many people are on welfare - and why.

"For example, in order for me to work full-time, from 9 to 5, I need a baby-sitter to pick up my child from school at 3 p.m. and watch her for three hours until I get home at 6 p.m. At $10 an hour in Manhattan, that is $30 a day, $150 a week."

While the child-care card can legitimately be played, a full accounting of the reality is in order. First, where are both parents? Why don't they coordinate their job schedules to meet this challenge? Of course, the answer to that would detract from the pathos of the article. Second, where are the businesses that meet this need? Why not start a day-care business and kill two birds with one stone by watching your child along with others and making some money to boot? Third, where are the extended family members who (as we are so often told when extolling the rich cultural heritage of the underclasses) serve as surrogate parents? Fourth, what about the fact that a significant chunk of the underclass don't even care about their children and let them run wild anyway? Lastly, I think a fair and thorough analysis might even question why success in our economy is geared to having two working adults in the family. Could it be that the feminist theory that propelled a doubling of the workforce actually harms the poor and single parent households by raising the cost of everything including housing, health and kinder care? Hmmmm?

"Deduct another $17.50 toward a $70 monthly Metro pass, which leaves us with $38.50 for everything else. Laundry, phone and Con Ed bill, clothes, school supplies, haircuts and who knows what else I haven't even thought of."

Here are a few more things she didn't think of. Most poor people in this country have automobiles and there are things such as ride-shares. Obviously, economizing at this level is something this woman knows nothing about. Haircuts, for example. Did the idea of cutting her children's hair even enter her mind? Nope. Makes a good point to tack onto the list though.

"And what about the extras that every child deserves?"

Again, grafting notions of the middle-class world into the confines of a artificially limited scale of poverty. "I would be so sad about missing class trips, Mom," said Alex, a fourth-grader. "And if I had no present to bring to Sarah's party, I would worry she would get madat me." Well, kid, suck it up. You won't be seeing to much of Sarah anyhow since your mama won't be able to afford the private school you attend now.

"On the plus side, as a mother with one school-age child, I learned I would qualify for certain benefits."

Oh yeah. Your sugar daddy is Uncle Sam.

"I went to the giant Fairway supermarket in Harlem to buy a week's worth of groceries. The Ben and Jerry's cookie dough ice cream for $3.49 looked tempting…"

Odd thing, that. A couple of Marxists start a business that other Marxists flock to and they gladly pay nearly $30.00 a gallon to raise their cholesterol and get lectured about global warming. Smart move, lady, you don't need that. Don't forget the beans…and the rice…and the flour…and the common basic ingredients to scratch cook. What's that? Can't cook? Get a maid that can, Dearie.

"A bodega on Amsterdam was selling the same brand of turkey for $6.49, as was Fairway. That and a 99-cent loaf of not-so-healthy white bread and I could make Alex's lunch at home…I felt triumphant that we had avoided lard-laden school lunches for two days. But I lost that battle by Wednesday. The rest of the week she ate peanut butter…"

Awww! Too bad. I eat peanut butter every week. It is a cold day when luncheon meat enters the house. White bread will fill you just fine and, besides, all of the roughage you get from the beans and vegetables will keep you regular as a clock. Honestly, the snobbery in this woman's point of reference is something else. I have little doubt that next week she'll write all about the factory farming menace and how poor turkeys are abused before we kill them for our barbaric diets.

Oh well, I could go on and on - the need to vent never ends. There is little point since we agree on the biggest error in this woman's thinking.