Well, it must be nice to independently wealthy. No problem with that. But it's no wonder you think people could live off $3/hr... because NO ONE could unless they already had money. You were claiming plenty of people would be willing to work for it. But NO ONE would because no way in hell would it pay the bills.
You are correct, that currently because we have certain social safety nets such as food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, $3/hr is less than not working if you qualify, but not everybody does and some run out.
And you mentioned homeless people would work it but homeless people can't get hired. You can't get employment unless you have an address and phone number (and access to showers).
according to you they wouldn't be hired because they're all diseased or toothless anyway.
And I would never have waited tables for minimum wage. I drove 1/2 hour to work. I would have just worked at the Wendy's a mile from home instead (which I currently do as one of my two jobs).
It doesn't surprise me you'd choose differently had situations been different.
But I would have never been able to even pay rent. Working full time at minimum wage, a person would make roughly $950/month after taxes. So, they'd still be collecting welfare (which I've always refused). It wouldn't be so bad in a 2-person household, but a single person (especially one with a child) would be pretty darn hard-strapped.
Understood, it would be very hard. I don't wish it on anybody, but I don't pay somebody because they're in need.
I'm only arguing this point because I think some people have no concept of what being poor is. Like real poor.
I have some concept because I've seen it, I can't say I've lived it, but I can say I've been very careful to avoid it, or I'd have easily slipped in like some have. I still know people who were recently homeless, most of the time it's their fault, luckily they learned, and were able to get back up.
Not $50k/yr poor, but the people who are making $12k a year even while working full-time. And they can't get more because the entire area they live in is economically depressed and there are no better paying jobs unless you have a degree (which still doesn't help much).
$50k/yr is not poor at all, anybody who says that's poor is just poor at math and finances.
Around here the only good jobs are teachers, nurses, and coal mining. And most of them you have to know someone to get in. Hell, even the town cops are paid minimum wage. I got a medical secretary job out of pure luck. I don't even have a degree in it. Mine's in mental health technology which has proven to be absolutely useless. So this isn't a place where you can just "find something better". There is no better unless you move away, and even then there's no promises.
That's exactly my point, there are no better choices and nobody owes you better choices. So while it sucks to be poor, I don't pay somebody just because they need money or just because I understand what it's like to be poor, that would be charity and sympathy. This further demonstrates the point, that your threat of "If you don't pay these people they'll stop being waiters and you won't have restuarants" isn't a threat to me at all, you've clearly admitted there's more people in need of low paying jobs than there are who need a service such as waiting tables.
In other words, the market where you are allows people to pay people less. I don't doubt within all possible qualified candidates, you're experienced and do better a job than average or most, but that doesn't mean your work is necessarily worth more than minimum wage, we have to take into consideration other things, such as, if we didn't offer you a waitress job, what alternatives would you have?
