Minimum wage woes and budgeting

Forums › Off topic › Minimum wage woes and budgeting

1 | 2 | 3

spronkey

117 posts

Master Geek

#1125192 9-Sep-2014 17:13

SepticSceptic:
spronkey:
The other thing I find a bit disheartening is the attitude that both parents in a young family should be working. In my opinion, a single person working a 40 hour a week job should be able to support a family with 2 young kids, with warm housing, healthy food, clean clothes, and a few small luxuries outside that.

Our parents managed that OK in the 60's and 70's, something went wrong, somewhere.

Serviced a mortgage on an average house, not too far in the suburbs - Birkdale ( adjacent to Beachhaven), single car family, walked to school every day, had the occasional outing, though I don't recall going to the movies - plenty of trips to the beach though.
Never wanted for much. B&W TV.

Ahh, rose-tinted glasses, reality check in progress .....

Yeah, one/two/three generations ago it was pretty common to have a single full time working parent, and maybe some part time work for the second (if that).

The cost of modern life, especially when we have to import everything and pay comparably twice as much as USians, adds up quick though.

$1000 for the compulsory laptop for each of the two kids every three years
$300 at least for a TV. Another $300 for the TV for your room because the kids want to watch something else
$200 at least for a mobile phone, each, and you've gotta give them to your teenage kids too these days of course
$50/month for broadband, because without it your kids will probably fall behind in school, or social standing (sigh), and you can't use trademe to get cheap stuff (so I guess it pays for itself)
$40/month for the mobile phone plan for you and your partner, and $19/month for your kids $19 prepay packs so they can facetwitsnapgram with their friends

That's $3.5k/year... not insignificant!

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1125240 9-Sep-2014 18:51

While the discussion about the guys claims has been interesting, no one has asked whether they are actually true.

A friend emailed me this link to an article on Whaleoil about the person in question.

I'm not usually a Whaleoil reader (I loathe Slater), and anything on it needs to be taken with many grains of salt. Nevertheless, it looks like the story is a fake and Fairfax has been "had" by a political campaigner.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1125249 9-Sep-2014 19:05

spronkey:
SepticSceptic:
spronkey:
The other thing I find a bit disheartening is the attitude that both parents in a young family should be working. In my opinion, a single person working a 40 hour a week job should be able to support a family with 2 young kids, with warm housing, healthy food, clean clothes, and a few small luxuries outside that.

Our parents managed that OK in the 60's and 70's, something went wrong, somewhere.

Serviced a mortgage on an average house, not too far in the suburbs - Birkdale ( adjacent to Beachhaven), single car family, walked to school every day, had the occasional outing, though I don't recall going to the movies - plenty of trips to the beach though.
Never wanted for much. B&W TV.

Ahh, rose-tinted glasses, reality check in progress .....

Yeah, one/two/three generations ago it was pretty common to have a single full time working parent, and maybe some part time work for the second (if that).

The cost of modern life, especially when we have to import everything and pay comparably twice as much as USians, adds up quick though.

$1000 for the compulsory laptop for each of the two kids every three years
$300 at least for a TV. Another $300 for the TV for your room because the kids want to watch something else
$200 at least for a mobile phone, each, and you've gotta give them to your teenage kids too these days of course
$50/month for broadband, because without it your kids will probably fall behind in school, or social standing (sigh), and you can't use trademe to get cheap stuff (so I guess it pays for itself)
$40/month for the mobile phone plan for you and your partner, and $19/month for your kids $19 prepay packs so they can facetwitsnapgram with their friends

That's $3.5k/year... not insignificant!

The one big thing that is a lot more expensive in real terms nowadays is of course housing. Either buying a house or renting.

And yes, most people seem to be addicted to gadgets that were not even invented 30 or 40 years ago. SKY TV, DVDs/videos/cellphones/internet you name it.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

matisyahu

1624 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1125294 9-Sep-2014 19:30

minimoke: The Living Wage movement has an aim of reducing “Poverty” in NZ. “Poverty” (defined by the Child Poverty lobbyists) is 60% of median household income after housing costs are removed.

Median household income is around $58,000 per annum. Tax on that is $10,420 leaving a household income of $47,580 or $915 cash in the hand a week.

Take off average weekly household costs of $13,177 or $253 a week we are left with $662 a week. 60% of that is $397 net a week. So that is the apparent poverty line.

However we then need to take into account Working For Families. Lets say a family has two kids. An annual household income of $58,000 will see another $124 in tax credits a week go back into the family bank account. That’s $64 Family Tax Credit and $60 In Work Tax Credit.

So we now have a New Zealand family in “poverty” bringing in $521 net cash a week, (after household costs) or a family of four with $27.60 a day each ($18.60 net income + $9 a day household costs) to live on. We are essentially saying that with $18.60 each a family cannot afford to put a bowl of porridge in front of the kids each day. I can go on- line and shop at count down and buy 1.5kgs of Rolled Oats for $4.00. That’s 30 servings at $0.13 a serving.

An earlier poster asked where does the money go; Transportation – sure but the kids could walk to school to help. Health care – which is free for kids under six and subsidised for 6 – 17 year olds, free basic dental health care, subsided injury expenses, decile one schools get the greatest level of govt funding so “donations” are the lowest. And clothing which at somewhere like SaveMart you can pick up pretty much anything for less than $2 a piece.

Contrast our “poverty” definition with that of the World Bank which sets it as an income of $1.50 per person a day.

I suspect that what the Living Wage movement is simply about wealth redistribution from the wealthy to others. So, at the Warehouse wealth distribution is shifted from Shareholders to Workers. In Wellingotn City Council Area it is from NZ tax payers to Wellington residents

So going by that logic that the 'The Living Wage' campaigners set then apparently I'm in poverty based on how much I earn and the fact that I don't have to access to working for families (because I have no kids) and I don't qualify for the community services card or accommodation supplement. I'm personally not pleading poverty because to be honest I'm living pretty much an ok life on what I have but I do question whether the problem are people coming up with are aspirations of a lifestyle and then demanding others to subsidise/support that lifestyle rather than living within ones means.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1125346 9-Sep-2014 21:12

JimmyH: While the discussion about the guys claims has been interesting, no one has asked whether they are actually true. A friend emailed me this link to an article on Whaleoil about the person in question. I'm not usually a Whaleoil reader (I loathe Slater), and anything on it needs to be taken with many grains of salt. Nevertheless, it looks like the story is a fake and Fairfax has been "had" by a political campaigner.

In fairness it's hard to tell exactly what happened here. Originally there was contradictory information in the article itself. Original title: "Woes of minimum wage felt by family" but the figures in the article did not look like minimum wage.

My guess is the reporter was rung by a political party with an "I've got a story for you about the minimum wage, go see this guy". Then off the reporter goes and writes the article on that basis. Either way it looks ham-fisted.

The article has since been substantially edited and given a new title: "Woes of ~~minimum wage~~ low wage felt by family".

If you read it like a mini-profile on a guy who earns a low wage for his job, finds it a bit tough, and is concerned about others earning even less then it makes a bit more sense.

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1125910 10-Sep-2014 16:31

Hmmm.
Our (2 of us) income is $1333 a fortnight.
The mortgage is $700 a fortnight.
We're broke but hey I pay the biolls and we eat. Do have extensive food gardens but of course you don't get a meat bush or anything....cheese tree, whatever....

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1125941 10-Sep-2014 17:08

kawaii: So going by that logic that the 'The Living Wage' campaigners set then apparently I'm in poverty based on how much I earn and the fact that I don't have to access to working for families (because I have no kids) and I don't qualify for the community services card or accommodation supplement. I'm personally not pleading poverty because to be honest I'm living pretty much an ok life on what I have but I do question whether the problem are people coming up with are aspirations of a lifestyle and then demanding others to subsidise/support that lifestyle rather than living within ones means.

The Living Wage people believe that a Living Wage will reduce poverty. It does not follow automatically that they believe everyone currently earning less than the Living Wage that they advocate is living in poverty.

The main aim of the campaign is to find ways to increase wages in cooperation with employers by promoting the benefits of the Living Wage - eg; reduced staff turnover, retaining skilled staff, recognising employee skills etc.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1126016 10-Sep-2014 18:53

gzt:
JimmyH: While the discussion about the guys claims has been interesting, no one has asked whether they are actually true. A friend emailed me this link to an article on Whaleoil about the person in question. I'm not usually a Whaleoil reader (I loathe Slater), and anything on it needs to be taken with many grains of salt. Nevertheless, it looks like the story is a fake and Fairfax has been "had" by a political campaigner.

In fairness it's hard to tell exactly what happened here. Originally there was contradictory information in the article itself. Original title: "Woes of minimum wage felt by family" but the figures in the article did not look like minimum wage.

My guess is the reporter was rung by a political party with an "I've got a story for you about the minimum wage, go see this guy". Then off the reporter goes and writes the article on that basis. Either way it looks ham-fisted.

The article has since been substantially edited and given a new title: "Woes of minimum wage low wage felt by family".

If you read it like a mini-profile on a guy who earns a low wage for his job, finds it a bit tough, and is concerned about others earning even less then it makes a bit more sense.

Yes, but even so, if the Whaleoil article is correct then obviously people have a different definition of poverty and "woe" to mine.

Working a 40 hour week and being able to afford seven week holidays in the US isn't exactly the same as working "like an animal" or being unable to put food on the table.

Personally, I work significantly longer than 40 hours per week, and I can't afford seven week jaunts around the US.

I think it's fairly obvious that this was a puff piece from a political activist that was picked up by a lazy journo, and never fact checked. They need to do more than edit and retitle the story - they need to explicitly retract it, state the truth and apologise. Quite frankly, the whole thing is a set up and, IMO, fairly insulting to families who are in genuine poverty.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1126109 10-Sep-2014 20:56

I'm reluctant to draw conclusions but it looks to me like the journalist was prepared with some information from somewhere and then goes round to interview the guy. He did not claim poverty. I doubt this guy wrote the story. Overall this looks like the work of some political party to get an item in the news. It's even possible he's the meat in the sandwich on this one.

Quite frankly, the whole thing is a set up and, IMO, fairly insulting to families who are in genuine poverty

agree.

1 | 2 | 3