Many Jobs Seen as Failing to Meet the Basics

[tpsbmam]

Source: NY Times

<snip>

But many of the jobs being added in retail, hospitality and home health care, to name a few categories, are unlikely to pay enough for workers to cover the cost of fundamentals like housing, utilities, food, health care, transportation and, in the case of working parents, child care.

A separate report being released Friday tries to go beyond traditional measurements like the poverty line and minimum wage to show what people need to earn to achieve a basic standard of living.

<snip>

According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/economy/01jobs.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&seid=auto

---

The study looked at stability, not just survival. The results are pretty damn grim.

[Omaha Steve]

1. Remember the chart on the Ed Show a few months ago?

As the percentage of workers in unions drops, so did the ability of the worker to get a job that meets the basics!

K&R!

[ThomCat]

4. That makes sense. The benefits unions create in the workforce

spill over to affect a large number of jobs that aren't union jobs.

Non-union jobs in the same fields benefit.

Non-union jobs in the same locations as union jobs, but different fields, also benefit.

Low-level and mid-level management jobs that aren't unionized also benefit in places that are unionized.

Unions create a lot of benefits that get spread around very liberally. A lot of people who don't like unions, and have never been in a union, have still benefited from unions throughout their careers. But as unions shrink, their influence shrinks too. :(

[jwirr]

29. I'm willing to bet that there is a chart that would compliment the two

charts showing that lower wages and a drop in union membership coincide with outsourcing our manufacturing to other countries. They are all tied together.

[ThomCat]

2. If those numbers are a national average, then

people living in major metro areas probably need a bit more. People living in smaller cities or rural areas probably need a bit less.

Here in NYC you would absolutely need more than those amounts.

[Devil_Fish]

30. Here in the SF Bay Area, you need about twice that. NT

[earthside]

3. Very Important!

This report should serve as a warning to Democrats who will just want to crow over any drops in the unemployment rate -- don't be fooled. The new hiring being done is for jobs with even less pay and fewer benefits than the jobs folks have before the crash in 2008.

A warning because discontent and anger is going to still be quite high among 'new hires' if they have to struggle so hard to just survive. Bragging about less unemployment could actually backfire if it leads to the perception that Democratic politicians just don't get how bad things are.

On the other hand -- this report also shows just how crazy it is for these Repuglican governors and legislatures to abolish collective bargaining -- the one thing that helps maintain a sustainable standard of living for working people.

This report is dynamite information with which to clobber the wage cutting, benefit cutting corporate Repuglicans -- and it is yet another red flag that Pres. Obama better get on the Wisconsin band wagon and fight for our union brothers and sisters.

[susanna]

7. Well said, earthside. In complete agreement. n/t

[woo me with science]

19. This is the metric that EVERYONE should be looking at. This needs to be news

and we need to talk honestly, at last, about how we actually measure how people are doing in this country.

People are fucking sick of being told lies about how they are doing and how the economy is doing. I was told twice yesterday here at DU that President Obama has already "handled" the economy. What a fucking pantload.

This measure is exactly what we need to be talking about, because there are many in government, and even here, who seem to think that we are doing just fine.

People are suffering and will continue to suffer until we make our complacent "representatives" WAKE UP.

[pacalo]

5. K&R! Good to see someone in the media is pointing this out.

[emmadoggy]

6. K & R. nt

[nolabear]

8. America, this is how we become a Third World Country

The RW and the corporations remove unions, defund education, keep prices high, break families with overblown mortgages and interest rates, and then have an unskilled, hungry, semi-destitute pool of powerless and hopeless workers who don't have the luxury of time, health and resources to challenge them.

I pray this isn't the way it will play out, but unless we band together to oppose this kind of thing with everything we've got, I don't see how it can be otherwise.

[raccoon]

9. A "no shit, Sherlock" moment. K&R. nt

[onehandle]

10. Many Low-Wage Jobs Seen as Failing to Meet Basic Needs

Source: New York Times

The study, commissioned by Wider Opportunities for Women, a nonprofit group, builds on an analysis the group and some state and local partners have been conducting since 1995 on how much income it takes to meet basic needs without relying on public subsidies. The new study aims to set thresholds for economic stability rather than mere survival, and takes into account saving for retirement and emergencies.

“We wanted to recognize that there was a cumulative impact that would affect one’s lifelong economic security,” said Joan A. Kuriansky, executive director of Wider Opportunities, whose report is called “The Basic Economic Security Tables for the United States.” “And we’ve all seen how often we have emergencies that we are unprepared for,” she said, especially during the recession. Layoffs or other health crises “can definitely begin to draw us into poverty.” According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker. That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2009. Wider Opportunities and its consulting partners saw a need for an index that would indicate how much families need to earn if, for example, they want to save for their children’s college education or for a down payment on a home.

“It’s an index that asks how can a family have a little grasp at the middle class,” said Michael Sherraden, director of the Center for Social Development at Washington University in St. Louis, who consulted on the project and helped develop projections for how much income families need to devote to savings. “If we’re interested in families being able to be stable and not have their lives disrupted and have a little protection and backup and be able to educate their children, then this is the way we have to think.” The numbers will not come as a surprise to working families who are struggling. Tara, a medical biller who declined to give her last name, said that she earns $15 an hour, while her husband, who works in building maintenance, makes $11.50 an hour. The couple, who live in Jamaica, Queens, have three sons, aged 9, 8 and 6.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/economy/01jobs.html

[ck4829]

11. K&R

[rfranklin]

12. Time for a living wage to be mandated...

but that's pie in the sky.

[jschurchin]

13. But, But, But, unemployment fell to 8.8% and we added

216,000 jobs in March. All of them good paying with wonderful benifits. Just ask any of the "This is a great report" people on this board.

[karynnj]

25. Do you think it bad news that the economy added a larger than expected number of jobs?

No one on the thread where I saw your inaccurate response was saying that things are great. But, seeing that less than a year ago the rate was over 10% with every expert saying that by election 2012 it would still be above 8% - 8.8% is a number that is a major step in the right direction.

It is very likely that the new jobs will be a mix - some with good wages and benefits - other with very low wages and no benefits.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. And in other startling news: it costs money to live!

[htuttle]

15. As the price of bread rises, Madame Defarge knits

[Javaman]

16. But hey! 216K were added last month! And we all know they were

full time jobs with full benefits that allow all those workers enough money to pay their bills, feed their families and have complete health care coverage!

Right? hello? is this thing on? Am I right?

Come with me to my cynical bliss, where nothing surprises you anymore.

[woo me with science]

18. THANK YOU.

I was told twice on this board yesterday that President Obama "has handled" the economy. They are moving on to other concerns.

What a pantload.

[ck4829]

17. Kick

[woo me with science]

20. Kicked and strongly, strongly recommended.

THANK YOU for posting this important information. We all need to be talking about this metric, and we need to FORCE our representatives to pay attention to this.

No, the economy isn't fixed. We cannot let them whitewash what remains a desperate situation for so many Americans.

[riderinthestorm]

21. K&R! Too important to drop. nt

[HughBeaumont]

22. This has been the same old story since 1997.

Or 1977, depending on who you ask.

Of course, 1979 was the peak of real dollar wage gains in the US, in terms of productivity, inflation and ability to meet the cost of living, as the above example clearly shows we aren't.

You're pretty much witnessing Unbridled Capitalism's end game. I don't see how anyone thought suppressing people's wages and firing them like there's no tomorrow would lead to any kind of economic activity or new/repeat business. You can't lower the price of your products to make any kind of bank with your "new consumer class over there".

An economic system based on perpetual growth, cheap energy, wage increase and constant profit in a world with finite to shrinking resources and capital (thanks to it being stalled en masse at the top of the pyramid) . . . how did anyone think this would be a success?

[udbcrzy2]

23. Those kind of jobs are part-time

Around 24-hours per week max. And they only pay minimum wage or just above it. Those folks also have to buy expensive gas to get back and forth to work, so they are spending 1/3 of their wages on gas to get to work.

[tpsbmam]

27. Not necessarily.

A full-time retail job at Wal-Mart, for example, pays less than average retail jobs and workers rely on medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc to survive. There have been lots of studies in lots of states. Here's one from California (2004):

We estimate that Wal-Mart workers in California earn on average 31 percent less than workers employed in large retail as a whole, receiving an average wage of $9.70 per hour compared to the $14.01 average hourly earnings for employees in large retail (firms with 1,000 or more employees). In addition, 23 percent fewer Wal-Mart workers are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than large retail workers as a whole. The differences are even greater when Wal-Mart workers are compared to unionized grocery workers. In the San Francisco Bay Area, non-managerial Wal-Mart employees earn on average $9.40 an hour, compared to $15.31 for unionized grocery workers—39 percent less—and are half as likely to have health benefits.

At these low-wages, many Wal-Mart workers rely on public safety net programs— such as food stamps, Medicare, and subsidized housing—to make ends meet
...

Main Findings:

* Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.

* The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees.

* The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.

Since Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in the U.S. (how sad is that?), that's about 2 million mostly full-time workers who don't make enough to even sustain themselves and their families -- stability would be a dream for most.

[udbcrzy2]

31. I worked at a union grocery store

24 hours max per week. They are union, however the ones who benefit from the union are the full-time workers. Most of those are department managers. The only time we got to work over that was when they had a holiday. I have also worked at Wal-mart and Target. They all suck when you think you only get to work 4-6 hour shifts, but you pay the same amount in gas to get there. I guess it depends on what kind of vehicle you have. Most poor people can't afford the latest gas saver auto. In rural areas we don't have bus or other public transportation.

One place I think is pretty good to work at as far as grocers go is Aldis, but it's hard to get in there. They start at 10.00 to 14.00 hourly.

Most retailers suck because it's a part-time job that you must be available for on a full-time basis because of their scheduling requirements.


Just wanted to add this, when I worked at Target, they paid me 1.50 less than Walmart. Target is actually worse than Walmart. Not that I think Walmart is great, but both suck.

[ProgressIn2008]

24. I always wonder about this when the propaganda on "new jobs" is trotted out

I wonder -- what kind of jobs? With what kind of salary? What kind of benefits? Were they the kind of jobs that people are trained/experienced in, or something quick outside one's regular field? Crappy job taken out of desperation? Dead-end job taken for some kind of survival?

And then I think: it's a lie, a damned lie, to call anything a "recovery" without answers to these questions.

[sarcasmo]

26. Multi family housing is making a big return because of the unlivable wage.

[Beacool]

28. This is precisely what a financial analyst was saying this morning on the radio.

"But many of the jobs being added in retail, hospitality and home health care, to name a few categories, are unlikely to pay enough for workers to cover the cost of fundamentals like housing, utilities, food, health care, transportation and, in the case of working parents, child care."

She said that most of the jobs were at the lower economic end and below $30,000 (the amount needed to cover basic needs). The government unemployment figures have always been deceptive. They don't tell the full story.

:-(