NationStates Jolt Archive

As the title suggests, do you think it is possible to make just the bare minimum to survive in a modern CAPITALIST industrialized country (When you have a job)? I say no. My grandfather makes just above minumum wage, yet he's not poor by any means. He smokes, he buys new games and computer upgrades all the time, got every system since the Genesis:D,etc,. What are your thoughts generalites? Is it poor budgeting or the sheer lack of money?

Ahhhh... The sweet smell of the general forums...

As the title suggests, do you think it is possible to make just the bare minimum to survive in a modern CAPITALIST industrialized country (When you have a job)? I say no. My grandfather makes just above minumum wage, yet he's not poor by any means. He smokes, he buys new games and computer upgrades all the time, got every system since the Genesis:D,etc,. What are your thoughts generalites? Is it poor budgeting or the sheer lack of money?

Ahhhh... The sweet smell of the general forums...

Yes. My mother did for years. She was working as a nurse, had 3 kids to feed and barely made ends meet. If my uncle hadn't helped her financially, she couldn't have managed.
I grew up without money for buying new clothes (everything we wore was handed down from friends or relatives), without money for vacations, without money for school books (thankfully, the schools we attended allowed us to borrow the books from them each year) and in a family without car. The only little bit of luxury we had was a TV a friend of my mom gave us (too old to allow more than 5 programs to be stored), and a computer that I got from the father of a friend of mine when his company modernised their IT equipment.

*lol Better budgeting skills? Seriously? How do you budget 1700DM a month with 3 kids?

*lol Better budgeting skills? Seriously? How do you budget 1700DM a month with 3 kids?
DM? I'm not familar with foriegn currencys. How much is that USD?

yes of course it is; it's not easy but y'know it can be done.

yes of course it is; it's not easy but y'know it can be done.
Erm... What are you saying? What can be done?

DM? I'm not familar with foriegn currencys. How much is that USD?

D-Mark. It was during the 1980s, before the Euro. I've got no clue how much it would have been in dollars, but to give you the budget we had :

800DM rent
250DM electricity, water, bin collection, telephone
75-250DM heating and hot water (depending on the season)

The rest for food and other necessities.

Edit : These days, it would be 850€

Erm... What are you saying? What can be done?

Scraping by. It can be done, if you're very good with your money and not too proud to take donations (like clothes, books, etc)

I'd say you can as long as you don't have too many commitments and just live in a blank single room on whatever the UK minimum wage happens to be at this point in time (most likely my paycheck *sigh*)

course it seems odd that the less you live the more money you have, but I guess thats life

I think what we have here is a total failure to communicate. Which speaks volumes about the income inequalities in Western countries even during the last 20 years.
That, or I'm misunderstanding CM's question.

Na, it's all budgeting and therefore the fault of the person involved. Therefore there aren't actually any poor people we should care about and therefore there is no such problem as poverty.

It's not just possible, it's the reality for millions of people on a day to day basis.

The minimum wage in the United Kingdom is currently £5.52 per hour. This would yield around £957 per month before tax based on a 40 hour week.

The average rent for a one bedroom flat is around £600-£750 per month, or £350-£500 per month outside London. A room in a share flat costs from £350 to £500, less outside London (I don't know how much less).

For most people on the minimum wage (or anything near it) living in a home of their own is impossible, it's share or nothing.

Let's take a look at other "luxuries"

Bus only Travelcard : £50 (No cushy trains for you)
Council Tax : £80 (Band "A" assuming you live in the very cheapest flats)
Utilities : £80 - £90
Food : £50 - £60 assuming low-cost supermarkets are nearby

All of this is assuming that you can find a full time legitimate job in the first place.

Anyone who belives living as a single person on the minimum wage in any developed country is delusional. Anyone who believes you can do the same on welfare needs urgent psychiatric help. You can't.

Uh, it's incredibly easy to make very little money, anywhere, anytime for anyone. What am I missing here?

I find it pretty hard. I live in Brisbane, and my weekly budget looks somthing like:

Income:
Work 1: 13 hours: $250
Work 2(contract work): 9 hours: 130 (after expenses) (Very cruisy job so it's worth the pay cut)
Total: $380
(about $310 after tax)

Spendings:
Rent: $135
Fuel & other car expensses: ~$70
parking at work/uni: $20
Electricity: ~$7
Phone: $20
Net: $5
Public transport: $8
Cost before food:$265

Food usually costs about $70 a week... depending on how well I plan...

if work drops a 5 hour shift I lose $90 of pay. However this over time balances out with the weeks they give me an extra shift.

So, it turns out that I am actually losing money, despite working 25 hours around my 30 hour uni week...

I am just lucky my parents are able to transfer me some money if I am in dire need...

(I find it somewhat humorous that Dire Straits just turned on winamp)

What am I missing here?

You're missing the obvious fact that because CM's grandfather makes only a little bit more than minimum wage and he is able to buy games everyone who makes minimum wage but isn't able to live comfortably must spend their money on crack.

Of course this is bullshit, if you have children to support with minimum wage you're obviously fucked, and there are many other factors which can make people scrape by in modern countries (bad health for instance, divorce is pretty bad too). On the other hand I do kind of agree that money-mismanagement can play a role too. Especially the last years where many people are buying almost everything on credit this could be the case, but that's hardly a reason to say that it's impossible to scrape by in modern countries (especially if there are recently many reports about how poverty is becoming more widespread and costs essential to living (food, housing, energy etc) are rising, at least here).

Erm... What are you saying? What can be done?

What, I answering your question, think back now, what did you ask.

It's not just possible, it's the reality for millions of people on a day to day basis.

The minimum wage in the United Kingdom is currently £5.52 per hour. This would yield around £957 per month before tax based on a 40 hour week.

The average rent for a one bedroom flat is around £600-£750 per month, or £350-£500 per month outside London. A room in a share flat costs from £350 to £500, less outside London (I don't know how much less).

For most people on the minimum wage (or anything near it) living in a home of their own is impossible, it's share or nothing.

Let's take a look at other "luxuries"

Bus only Travelcard : £50 (No cushy trains for you)
Council Tax : £80 (Band "A" assuming you live in the very cheapest flats)
Utilities : £80 - £90
Food : £50 - £60 assuming low-cost supermarkets are nearby

All of this is assuming that you can find a full time legitimate job in the first place.

Anyone who belives living as a single person on the minimum wage in any developed country is delusional. Anyone who believes you can do the same on welfare needs urgent psychiatric help. You can't.

Yet you say not only can be done, but it is day to day reality for many. So what is it, you can or you can't?

Yet you say not only can be done, but it is day to day reality for many. So what is it, you can or you can't?

You can just scrape by (just about) because incomes are low - as opposed to it being easy or comfrtable - and this is how it is for millions of people. A lot of people survive only by juggling debts. I meant "can" in responce to the way the OP question was asked, which was unusual wording.

As the title suggests, do you think it is possible to make just the bare minimum to survive in a modern CAPITALIST industrialized country (When you have a job)? I say no. My grandfather makes just above minumum wage, yet he's not poor by any means. He smokes, he buys new games and computer upgrades all the time, got every system since the Genesis:D,etc,. What are your thoughts generalites? Is it poor budgeting or the sheer lack of money?

Ahhhh... The sweet smell of the general forums...

i dont understand the question and the point of you are making with your grandfather.

are you asking if anyone makes so little that they just squeeze by? dont millions of people manage to survive no matter how little they make?

are you making a distinction between those poor people who work for their money and those that get by only with government assistance?

your question is absurd on the face of it. tens of millions of people in modern countries just scrape by. what are you really asking?

You can just scrape by (just about) because incomes are low - as opposed to it being easy or comfrtable - and this is how it is for millions of people. A lot of people survive only by juggling debts. I meant "can" in responce to the way the OP question was asked, which was unusual wording.

So you say that you can scrape by on minimum wage but not on benifits?

There was a study by some group that was published in the Times a while back that said someone only supporting themselves on minimum wage cannot "scrape by".

There was a study by some group that was published in the Times a while back that said someone only supporting themselves on minimum wage cannot "scrape by".

Heh yet everyday the reality of the situation proves that one wrong.

Conserative Morality seems to be saying that minimum wage in a capitalist country is enough for a person to live comfortably, and that therefore assertions that minimum wage is too low or barely enough are wrong.

(CM can correct me if I'm wrong.)

If one is resourceful enough there are ways to get by with meager amounts of money. People do it all the time in the US and many other nations. As for ones own life it is really a sum of the choices you have made in life. Where you are at today for the most part is based of the decisions you made yesterday. So the point is to make good decisions for ones self and your condition will improve.

As for ones own life it is really a sum of the choices you have made in life. Where you are at today for the most part is based of the decisions you made yesterday. So the point is to make good decisions for ones self and your condition will improve.

Of course good decisions play an important role but circumstance also plays an important role and we shouldn't overlook the ways in which circumstances affect the ability of some people to make the decisions that would help improve their situation.

Heh yet everyday the reality of the situation proves that one wrong.



Actually, I just found the study.


It says people making minimum wage cannot live IN NEW YORK because minimum wage wont even pay rent in the cheapest apartment complex. But its only in relation to New York City. So that actually makes it irrelevent.

Conserative Morality seems to be saying that minimum wage in a capitalist country is enough for a person to live comfortably, and that therefore assertions that minimum wage is too low or barely enough are wrong.

(CM can correct me if I'm wrong.)

No, youre right. Its just another chance for the pro-captitalist anti-government interventionists to have a circle jerk.

Of course good decisions play an important role but circumstance also plays an important role and we shouldn't overlook the ways in which circumstances affect the ability of some people to make the decisions that would help improve their situation.

Yes of course. Which is why I support better public education.

So the point is to make good decisions for ones self and your condition will improve.

This is what we call 'wishful thinking'.

I know here in Montana it is quite frankly impossible to have any standard of living on minimum wage without some sort of government assistance or charity. A single person might be able to scrape by, or a couple both earning minimum wage, maybe. Only if you live in the rural areas though. If you live in any of the urbanized areas, there really is no way. You'd need some form of assistance.

And that is of course without throwing kids into the equation.

So you say that you can scrape by on minimum wage but not on benifits?

Not realistically. A lot of people ar eon benefits but they usually manage by other means, either engaging in the black economy or depending on friends/family for help of one kind or another. By enagaging in the black economy I don't mean they are pulling in £28k a year or something stupid as the Daily Mail says, but in most cases doing small jobs or favours for friends on the side in return for goods, money or some form of help they need.

This is what we call 'wishful thinking'.

Wrong. The vast majority of decisions in your life are in your own control.

As the title suggests, do you think it is possible to make just the bare minimum to survive in a modern CAPITALIST industrialized country (When you have a job)? I say no. My grandfather makes just above minumum wage, yet he's not poor by any means. He smokes, he buys new games and computer upgrades all the time, got every system since the Genesis:D,etc,. What are your thoughts generalites? Is it poor budgeting or the sheer lack of money?

Ahhhh... The sweet smell of the general forums...

Your grandfather is a gamer? Cool!

Wrong. The vast majority of decisions in your life are in your own control.

They're manipulated choices though. The odds are in general stacked against the common man.

As the title suggests, do you think it is possible to make just the bare minimum to survive in a modern CAPITALIST industrialized country (When you have a job)? I say no.

It's going to depend on the cost of living in a particular region or area, and on the social services available to people with low incomes. In Edmonton, AB, for example, housing is at the highest level you can find in Canada outside of perhaps Vancouver and Toronto. About $1500 for a bachelor suite. The minimum wage here is $8.40, so that's about $1344 a month working full time. The cost of rent alone exceeds that. So either you're renting a room in a house with a bunch of other people, or you're fucked. Even still, even if you're only spending HALF your income on rent, you don't have much to play with after that, considering the cost of transportation, the rising cost of food and the rising prices of ultilities costs.

And that is in an economy with more work than workers, in an ideal situation where you are able to work and are not supporting any dependents. So yes, it's absolutely possible to just scrape by...to not even be ABLE to scrape by, depending where you live.

Conserative Morality seems to be saying that minimum wage in a capitalist country is enough for a person to live comfortably, and that therefore assertions that minimum wage is too low or barely enough are wrong.

(CM can correct me if I'm wrong.)
Actually, I made this thread on an impulse after seeing another thread (Forget which one) Which got me to think about this. Oh, but I agree with that too!
Your grandfather is a gamer? Cool!
He's the one that got ME gaming;) But I'm getting off topic.
i dont understand the question and the point of you are making with your grandfather.

are you asking if anyone makes so little that they just squeeze by? dont millions of people manage to survive no matter how little they make?

are you making a distinction between those poor people who work for their money and those that get by only with government assistance?

your question is absurd on the face of it. tens of millions of people in modern countries just scrape by. what are you really asking?
Alright, I think I probably was a little vague. What I'm asking is do you think it's THEIR fault that they're barly scraping by, or that it's beyond their control if they have a minimum wage job.

5 of my friends rented a 4 bedroom house together and payed less than 400$/month in rent and bills. they were each making between 9$ and 10$ per hour.

5 of my friends rented a 4 bedroom house together and payed less than 400$/month in rent and bills. they were each making between 9$ and 10$ per hour.

Each, or all together? And where is this? What is the cost of living in this area?

Little tidbits of information like this are meaningless without context. What is a living wage in one area is no such thing in another.

Each, or all together? And where is this? What is the cost of living in this area?

Little tidbits of information like this are meaningless without context. What is a living wage in one area is no such thing in another.

Each paying 400$/month
town with a Population 30,000 in Canada
min wage for the area=8$/hour

Each paying 400$/month
town with a Population 30,000 in Canada
min wage for the area=8$/hour

So the house is $2000 a month.

Come to Edmonton. You might get a one bedroom apartment for that price.

And our minimum wage is only 40 cents higher than yours.

Alright, I think I probably was a little vague. What I'm asking is do you think it's THEIR fault that they're barly scraping by, or that it's beyond their control if they have a minimum wage job.

oh thats a completely different question.

for some people its their "fault"; for some it isnt.

So the house is $2000 a month.

Come to Edmonton. You might get a one bedroom apartment for that price.

And our minimum wage is only 40 cents higher than yours.

Obviously population of an area has influence on the cost of housing.

It's going to depend on the cost of living in a particular region or area, and on the social services available to people with low incomes. In Edmonton, AB, for example, housing is at the highest level you can find in Canada outside of perhaps Vancouver and Toronto. About $1500 for a bachelor suite. The minimum wage here is $8.40, so that's about $1344 a month working full time. The cost of rent alone exceeds that. So either you're renting a room in a house with a bunch of other people, or you're fucked. Even still, even if you're only spending HALF your income on rent, you don't have much to play with after that, considering the cost of transportation, the rising cost of food and the rising prices of ultilities costs.

And that is in an economy with more work than workers, in an ideal situation where you are able to work and are not supporting any dependents. So yes, it's absolutely possible to just scrape by...to not even be ABLE to scrape by, depending where you live.

Agreed. I live in the Vancouver area... it's so bloody expensive to live here. If you're looking for cheap housing you either need to settle for something in the really run down, drug neighbourhoods, or something way way out in the Valley... and if you're struggling to pay for rent, the fuel bill will murder you trying to commute to the city. Alternativey, public transit will take a couple hours, and passes push $100 monthly.

It is certainly possible if you don't have a family, any debt and are ok with watching hookers OD outside your window as your only entertainment. *shrug* but again, depends where you live.

Wrong. The vast majority of decisions in your life are in your own control.

You said: "So the point is to make good decisions for ones self and your condition will improve".

That only even relates if the right decisions become available to you to choose. It only even relates if you CAN make those choices.

In real terms, for most people - you don't get to choose which decisions you want to have to make, you don't get to choose when, and you can't just abandon everything to make them.


For example: with the rapidly rising cost of heating fuel, the 'good' choice is not letting your infant child freeze to death. It's going to hurt your financial plan, though.

Hence: Wishful thinking, my friend. Cute on paper, but incompatible with reality.

It is possible. Why wouldn´t it be?

What I'm asking is do you think it's THEIR fault that they're barly scraping by, or that it's beyond their control if they have a minimum wage job.

Even rephrased I think the question is too vague. Maybe that's deliberate on your part. What does "barely scraping by" constitute?

Top-of-my-head example: I almost certainly couldn't afford my own apartment if I had a minimum-wage job, but I would have a place to live if I had roommates or relatives to couch-surf with. Or if I had a car I could sleep in my car. I would have enough money to feed myself -- not particularly nutritious or tasty food, but I wouldn't starve. I wouldn't be able to afford my own medical care or pay for medical insurance, but I might qualify for MedicAid, or I could go to the ER and just not pay the bill.

So yeah, I could totally scrape by, in the sense of not immediately freezing or starving to death, so by global standards I'd be sitting pretty. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a safety net if something bad happened, and I wouldn't get any second chances if I made even a couple of poor decisions, so maybe that doesn't count as "scraping by". How you define that term pretty much defines how I answer your question.

of course if you stick to the basics of food, water, shelter et. al.

With the amount of welfare distributed like confetti in Britain, of course not. It is financially more profitable to remain unemployed and claim and exploit the raft of benefits available to those who seek to leech from the state.

of course if you stick to the basics of food, water, shelter et. al.

Hawaii is a good example. There are many people out on the beaches living in tents. Most beaches have showers and BBQ pits. So a place to cook and take a shower is what most people need. One could hold down a minimum wage job and probably save money. Especially if they worked in a restaurant getting free meals. I would imagine one could save near a thousand a month on minimum wage using this method.

One could hold down a minimum wage job and probably save money. Especially if they worked in a restaurant getting free meals.

Since when do you get free meals when you work in a restaurant? Every restaurant I've ever worked in you got an employee discount for 1 meal if eaten on shift and you were taxed on the discount amount as it was noncash compensation.

I know it's nitpicking. Having grown up in a tourist trap I get sensitive when people assume that tourist-trap jobs are easy living.

Since when do you get free meals when you work in a restaurant? Every restaurant I've ever worked in you got an employee discount for 1 meal if eaten on shift and you were taxed on the discount amount as it was noncash compensation.

I know it's nitpicking. Having grown up in a tourist trap I get sensitive when people assume that tourist-trap jobs are easy living.

I own a restaraunt/bar amongst other things. We feed our people one meal a day if they want. Many private ones do.

Edit: Also never said it was easy.

Poll is confusing.

I own a restaraunt/bar amongst other things. We feed our people one meal a day if they want. Many private ones do.

Edit: Also never said it was easy.

Fair enough, I shouldn't be surprised that there are less-crappy restaurants out there than the ones I had the pleasure of working at. Good on you.

You're right, you didn't say it was easy. I think that $1K/month discretionary income is an extremely high estimate for working minimum-wage. Maybe less out-of-reach with tent housing, no car, 1 free meal/workday, but I still think it's high, I'd have to do the numbers.

Yes of course. Which is why I support better public education.

Thank you! :) <--teacher

Wrong. The vast majority of decisions in your life are in your own control.

Sure, I'll buy that. You can choose what street to walk down. You can choose whether to pepper and/or salt your eggs (3 choices!). You can choose to double-knot your shoelaces. You can not choose to be born in an inner city with shitty public schooling and drug-using parents who beat you. So that's 5 choices you can make and one you can't... but I'd say the one you can't is pretty damn important.

I made roughly 1.3k USD (7762 SEK) after tax last month, which is pretty typical. It's enough for me to live comfortably and even save a bit every month.

Then again, I don't need a car to live comfortably, nor do I have any costly kids, and I guess that helps.

Fair enough, I shouldn't be surprised that there are less-crappy restaurants out there than the ones I had the pleasure of working at. Good on you.

You're right, you didn't say it was easy. I think that $1K/month discretionary income is an extremely high estimate for working minimum-wage. Maybe less out-of-reach with tent housing, no car, 1 free meal/workday, but I still think it's high, I'd have to do the numbers.

I will do some real quick numbers for you. Hawaii's minimum wage is around $8.00 USD x 40hrs or working two jobs you could work up to 56hr. So 40 hr x8 = $320 a week. The tax rate at $320 a week would be nothing because it is poverty level. So $320 x 52 weeks = $16640 a year or 1386.67 a month. Someone living in a tent could make it on $386.67 a month in Hawaii all the while saving about $1000 a month.

If it were 56 hrs a week ones cost even go down further because of the added food allowances. So it would work out to be $448 x 52 weeks = $23296 a year or $1941.33 a month. So if that tent dweller could then afford a cheap car and still save probably $1300-$1400 a month or $15600-$16800 a year. Probably a lot more saving than most regular families save in a year.

Unfortunately not everywhere you can camp in tents like in Hawaii. In fact, I'd think tenting in Hawaii would be far better accomodation that most "homes" in inner cities, as per confort (regarding temperature, neighbours, pollution, noise, hell even amneties if they have bbqs and showers).

Unfortunately not everywhere you can camp in tents like in Hawaii. In fact, I'd think tenting in Hawaii would be far better accomodation that most "homes" in inner cities, as per confort (regarding temperature, neighbours, pollution, noise, hell even amneties if they have bbqs and showers).

If a place isn't suitable for getting yourself off your feet then move. I never understood why people stay in a particular area if it just isn't working for them. Especially in a nation the size of the US where there is seemingly every type of variations of conditions.

the real problem is the economics of tax's in most modern country's. The problem is most companies include their taxes and such into their product. because most companies only produce one tiny part of the whole those taxes add up over time. like thus ---

company a : cost of manufacturing $.50 + tax $.10 + profit $.03 total $.63

company b : cost of manufacturing $.81 + tax $.10 + profit $.03 total $.94

company c : cost of manufacturing $.75 + tax $.10 + profit $.03 total $.88

company d : cost of purchase $2.45 + cost of manufacturing $.60 + tax $.10 + profit $.03 total $3.18

this effect causes the final consumer to in fact pay the tax's for every company up the chain.

this of course doesn't include shipping costs which would also be added in and the cost of fuel which also gets added in at every step plus the tax's on both of those products.

rising fuel costs cause an exponential increase in the cost of everything you buy, when combined with rising tax's this can be a major overload on the consumer, and don't forget the consumer must also pay his own tax's (without the ability to foist them onto another party).

subtract the tax's from the product and you get $2.78

while this of course doesn't seem like much of a differance over time that $.40
adds up even without the inclusion of shipping and fuel.

the fix of course would be to simply pass a law forbiding the inclusion of tax into the cost of the product thereby forcing the companies to actually pay their own tax's.

once you do this then tax breaks for these companies make more sense if they are needed.

also remove the ability to add the cost of transport and fuel into the equation and everyone could live far better on min wage then they do now.

of course the math is off because we all know that the tax's and profit's are in fact higher but the effect is the same.

I will do some real quick numbers for you. Hawaii's minimum wage is around $8.00 USD x 40hrs or working two jobs you could work up to 56hr. So 40 hr x8 = $320 a week. The tax rate at $320 a week would be nothing because it is poverty level. So $320 x 52 weeks = $16640 a year or 1386.67 a month. Someone living in a tent could make it on $386.67 a month in Hawaii all the while saving about $1000 a month.

If it were 56 hrs a week ones cost even go down further because of the added food allowances. So it would work out to be $448 x 52 weeks = $23296 a year or $1941.33 a month. So if that tent dweller could then afford a cheap car and still save probably $1300-$1400 a month or $15600-$16800 a year. Probably a lot more saving than most regular families save in a year.When I was making $320 a week, I was taxed at the Federal, State, and Local level.

Schwullunde;13625211']*clipped for brevity*

The problem is most companies include their taxes and such into their product - this effect causes the final consumer to in fact pay the tax's for every company up the chain.

this of course doesn't include shipping costs which would also be added in and the cost of fuel which also gets added in at every step plus the tax's on both of those products.

rising fuel costs cause an exponential increase in the cost of everything you buy, when combined with rising tax's this can be a major overload on the consumer, and don't forget the consumer must also pay his own tax's (without the ability to foist them onto another party).

the fix of course would be to simply pass a law forbiding the inclusion of tax into the cost of the product thereby forcing the companies to actually pay their own tax's.

also remove the ability to add the cost of transport and fuel into the equation and everyone could live far better on min wage then they do now.
And here we have a shining example of someone who doesn't have even the vaguest notion of how the economy works. Somehow, products would be much cheaper if the 'faceless evil businessman' paid his 'fair' share instead of pushing it onto the poor consumer, who is expected to actually pay for what they want.

How exactly do you separate taxes and shipping expenses from any other expense the business incurs? Somehow they don't matter to producing a product - if a widget costs $3 to make, but shipping it to the consumer costs $20, and the taxes incurred by the business is $1 per unit, the cost to the business is $24. Do you honestly believe anyone would produce a widget and lose $21 on every one? All business expenses are reflected in the cost of the product, otherwise that product would not be sold.

Let me put it in terms you might be better able to grasp - if looking at taking a job, would you consider your cost of living and commuting costs when considering your salary requirements? Would you take a job where it costs you more to get to it than your income?

Attempting to tax at every step also incurs a high compliance cost, which makes it highly inefficient compared to taxing something only at the final point of purchase (if you have consumption taxes).

Actually modern capitalist countries are by definition not 'industrialized' but 'de-industrialized'. Industrialization raises the living standards by everybody by bringing electricity, running clean water, heat, refridgeration etc to the common people. Modern times however have been characterised by a shift by heavy-industrial self-sufficiency for nations to a deindustrialized market-orientated 'export zone' which systematically regress society and bring down conditions and wages for workers as rival transnational business competes with each other for the lowest paid labor force.

Modern transnational capitalism (as opposed to national welfare capitalism) is characterized by a reduction in the industrial production of a nation (and the conditions of it's workers) and retardation of industrial growth in favor of 'light industry' - overproduction of small export consumer goods in order to transfer wealth upwards in society and retain workers as economic 'commodities'.

When I was making $320 a week, I was taxed at the Federal, State, and Local level.

Yes but your net federal income tax was nothing. As for the state I would imagine it being close to the same. The only thing you would be really paying out over the course of the year was medicare and social security. You could either change your deductions to keep all your money or get the tax refund.

As the title suggests, do you think it is possible to make just the bare minimum to survive in a modern CAPITALIST industrialized country (When you have a job)? I say no. My grandfather makes just above minumum wage, yet he's not poor by any means. He smokes, he buys new games and computer upgrades all the time, got every system since the Genesis:D,etc,. What are your thoughts generalites? Is it poor budgeting or the sheer lack of money?

Ahhhh... The sweet smell of the general forums...

Depends on the cost of living in your area. $8 an hour goes a lot further in Wyoming than it does in the San Francisco Bay Area. One of my friends pretty much just barely manages.

Depends on the cost of living in your area. $8 an hour goes a lot further in Wyoming than it does in the San Francisco Bay Area. One of my friends pretty much just barely manages.

Probably why San Francisco has a different minimum wage then the rest of California except L A which has their own too.

Probably why San Francisco has a different minimum wage then the rest of California except L A which has their own too.

SF does, but the rest of the bay area doesn't have separate wage laws than CA in general, and I'd say the cost of living in the east bay is as high as in The City.

Minimum wage is not a living wage. When you have to choose between paying the rent and buying food, you're not making enough money.

The question barely makes sense because the OP did a truly awful job writing it and should be ashamed.

The meaning seems to be something along the lines of

"Is it possible to make so little money in a developed country that you just barely get by without starving, and are unable to afford anything but barely adequate food and rudimentary shelter?"

SF does, but the rest of the bay area doesn't have separate wage laws than CA in general, and I'd say the cost of living in the east bay is as high as in The City.

Minimum wage is not a living wage. When you have to choose between paying the rent and buying food, you're not making enough money.

Don't disagree with you on any of the points. It is called minimum wage. One should not expect to be able to live independently on it without assistance from other people. When I mean assistance I mean cost sharing of housing, food and possibly transportation via roommates, mates or family.

SF does, but the rest of the bay area doesn't have separate wage laws than CA in general, and I'd say the cost of living in the east bay is as high as in The City.

Minimum wage is not a living wage. When you have to choose between paying the rent and buying food, you're not making enough money.


And if you aren't making enough money then what should you do?

The answer is: Get a better job or move somewhere cheaper.

And if you aren't making enough money then what should you do?

The answer is: Get a better job or move somewhere cheaper.

That is not always a possibility. Moving takes money. Getting a better job can be hard when your qualifications are few and so are available jobs.

Don't disagree with you on any of the points. It is called minimum wage. One should not expect to be able to live independently on it without assistance from other people. When I mean assistance I mean cost sharing of housing, food and possibly transportation via roommates, mates or family.

One of my friends makes minimum wage, but due to her mother being mentally ill and her father having left, she is the sole breadwinner of the household, and has been since she dropped out of high school to work full time.

Yes but your net federal income tax was nothing. As for the state I would imagine it being close to the same. The only thing you would be really paying out over the course of the year was medicare and social security. You could either change your deductions to keep all your money or get the tax refund.No, while I got some of the tax back that had been taken out, I didn't recieve all of it back.
Furthermore, I am unaware of any minimum income I'd have to make before state taxes are taken out, I'm fairly sure they take them out anyway.

As the title suggests, do you think it is possible to make just the bare minimum to survive in a modern CAPITALIST industrialized country (When you have a job)? I say no.

Here in Italy we have plenty of "working poors". Here in Milan, one of the richest cities of Europe, there are people with a job, and people on minimal pensions, who search the leftovers of the street markets because they can't allow to buy food.

The problem is that the wealth is extremely unevenly distributed: the income divide, coupled with the consumer goods price rise, is pushing many workers below the poverty line.

That is not always a possibility. Moving takes money. Getting a better job can be hard when your qualifications are few and so are available jobs.

Moving takes money and so does becoming better qualified.

This is one reason credit is so important, because it allows you to take out loans to pay for things that result in better pay in the long term, which lets you pay back the loan in the future.

There also drastic moves which don't require money, liking joining the armed forces.

There also drastic moves which don't require money, liking joining the armed forces.

Not available to everyone...

Here in Italy we have plenty of "working poors". Here in Milan, one of the richest cities of Europe, there are people with a job, and people on minimal pensions, who search the leftovers of the street markets because they can't allow to buy food.

The problem is that the wealth is extremely unevenly distributed: the income divide, coupled with the consumer goods price rise, is pushing many workers below the poverty line.

Are you specifically talking about how the Euro has changed the Italian economy? Something else happening? As for the divide in Italy I noticed that years ago when I first went there. I thought it was rather glaring really. Countries like the US, Canada and the UK mask it fairly well but in Italy I saw it right out in the open.

Entropic Creation my post was just a rehashing of "The Fair Tax". I beleave that Mr Neal Boortz explained the exact same thing, though his idea of a fix was a bit more in the line of just remove the tax structure completely and replace it with the fair tax. my idea was to simply legislate away the "inclusion" of those tax's. Personally I would reather drill a hole in my head then argue the merits and disadvantages of either idea.

as to S&H no I don't think it would be possible to remove those from the cost associated with any given product, that said it would actually be nice now wouldn't it. as long as we are dreaming It would be nice if everything was free, not going to happen but still:D

as to your attempt to put it in terms that I "understand". thats exactily what all of those persons who work for min. wage do every week. most people in this or any other country do not have the benefit of collage or training to get into the higher paying jobs. and yet somehow those jobs are still filled. not everyone gets a "salary", most take what they can get and make ends meet as best they can. and most of them never complain about the fact that they pay the same tax's for the same products again and again depending on how many middlemen there were in the process.

well I am going to let this one drop, I have no intention of getting into a long drawn out arguement, that will just end badly. neither of us will ever be convinced of the others arguements.

disclamer: please forgive any grammer and spelling errors in this post and my previous one.

SF does, but the rest of the bay area doesn't have separate wage laws than CA in general, and I'd say the cost of living in the east bay is as high as in The City.

Minimum wage is not a living wage. When you have to choose between paying the rent and buying food, you're not making enough money.

QFT. As a resident of the East Bay and former resident of Santa Cruz (as I see you are!) I can say that minimum wage in a single 40-hour a week job is not enough to live on, even with low-income housing.

Moving takes money and so does becoming better qualified.

This is one reason credit is so important, because it allows you to take out loans to pay for things that result in better pay in the long term, which lets you pay back the loan in the future.

There also drastic moves which don't require money, liking joining the armed forces.

Are you seriously suggesting using credit cards for daily living expenses? In our current economic crisis where people in their 20's are filing for bankrupcy and every fifth house seems to be repossessed? Credit isn't an answer, it's a short-term bandaid that leaves everyone in more debt.

Your suggestion of the armed forces also seems to assume that the working-poor under discussion are all lone individuals with no dependents or committments. What about the single mother of two whose husband ran out on her, who can't keep a job for more than a few months because as soon as she's employed, government assisted childcare stops paying and she can't afford to pay a babysitter? I suppose she should join the armed forces (which is not an open call to everyone--there are qualifications to meet) and hand her children over to be wards of the state?