America on $195 a Week

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How the working poor get by. Barely.

—By Sasha Abramsky

"I'll take a sandwich to work and that's about it," says Aubretia Edick, who is 58 and works in the pharmacy department of a Wal-Mart in Hudson, New York. "I drink a lot of tea. Once in a blue moon I'll go into Save-A-Lot and I'll get some meat. Eggs is kinda like a luxury kind of thing."

Edick first landed a $6.40-an-hour gig at Wal-Mart back in 2001, and over time her wages inched upward, reaching $10.50 last year. But with inflation factored in, it isn't that much better than when she first started. To make matters worse, while Edick was technically full time, her manager often slashed her hours due to the slowing economy. In mid-2008, she was grossing roughly $297 a week—$195 after taxes and deductions.

It's not just the unemployed who are hurting. Across the country, unskilled, nonunionized workers like Edick are barely scraping by on stagnant or declining wages. Bob Pollin, codirector of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, calculates that a single person needs about $400 a week, pretax, to achieve even a semblance of economic security—the ability to pay bills on time, eat three square meals a day, and set aside a small rainy-day fund. By Pollin's calculation, tens of millions of American workers fall short of that minimum.

You'll find many of them in food prep, where more than 11 million Americans command a median hourly wage of $8.24, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are another 4.5 million workers doing maintenance-related tasks for $10.18 an hour, 3.3 million in "personal care" at $9.50, and 14.5 million in retail jobs that pay $11.41. Last year, Wal-Mart said its employees averaged $10.83 an hour, although labor-activist group Wal-Mart Watch claims that many longtime workers still make less than $10. These meager wages have helped push 6.2 million more Americans into poverty between 2000 and 2007. And that was before the banking industry imploded.

The fallout can be seen in breadlines across the country. Dozens of food-pantry workers I've interviewed for my upcoming book on hunger report a flood of working-poor clients. Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest), a nonprofit that supplies 63,000 pantries and once primarily served "the poorest of the poor," learned in 2006 that more than one-third of its beneficiaries come from working households. "We're seeing faces we've never seen before," says spokesman Ross Fraser. At a pantry in Gallup, New Mexico, visited back when gas prices were soaring, one 29-year-old Navajo woman told me how the grueling drive to her 7-Eleven job in the town of Cuba came to burn up nearly half of her $6.80-per-hour take. In the end, the math didn't make sense, so she quit. "I feed my three boys potatoes," she said. "We eat two meals a day—just breakfast and dinner. Usually oatmeal for breakfast, and in the evening, gravy potatoes with tortillas."

Edick's monthly take-home pay—about $800 at the time I visited—doesn't go far either. She lives in a tiny apartment with a broken stove and mostly empty fridge that barely works. Rent and utilities run about $450 a month; when it's cold outside, she often sets the thermostat to 50 degrees to lower her bill. Gas and car insurance cost another $160 or so, depending on prices at the pump. And then there are the doctor visits, covered only after a $1,000 deductible—plus medicines for a thyroid problem, chronic anxiety, and osteoporosis.

To balance the budget, Edick often skimps on food, some weeks spending little more than $10 on groceries, about one-quarter what the federal food stamp program calculates is needed for three "thrifty meals" a day. She patronizes the grimy discount stores whose prices run even lower than Wal-Mart's, and can tick off their notable sales going back for months. "I had some oranges," she recalls with a self-deprecating smile. "A couple of months ago, they had grapes on sale." And, "If it's less than three dollars for a package of six steaks, that looks like a good deal to me." (She tries not to think too hard about the quality of a 50-cent steak.) Her staples include PB&J, canned ham salad, soup: "I'll get chicken noodle or Campbell's Chunky. There's meat in there. You can pour it over noodles and put butter on it. It's like a delicacy."

In essence, the nation's biggest employers of unskilled labor often leave workers having to feed from the public trough. In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits, the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, according to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley. Other studies have revealed widespread use of publicly funded health care by Wal-Mart employees in numerous states. In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.

For her part, Edick, unlike many Americans, hasn't resorted to handouts. (An estimated 28 million people were on food stamps as of last April, up from 17 million in 2000.) "There's times I'm hungry, and I'll look in the refrigerator for something—I'll find a snack pudding. Some leftover rice," Edick says softly. "I'm not starving or anything like that."

Sasha Abramsky's new book, Breadline USA, is due out in May from PoliPoint Press.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/01/america-195-week

[Jack and Barbara 0]

$195 or $400 per week doesn't sound like much but it also depends on the cost of living in the city. $400 per week might go farther in a rural town as opposed to Manhattan.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Sad, but so true. There are millions of people in this country who can barely survive while working full time. But lets forget about them and worry about the poor people in the rest of the world. We can help them, but not our own.

[Jasman0717 9]

I can't imagine trying to live on that little

[jundp 191]

I am humbled constantly by the people I meet through my work with a Catholic charity organization. They are not beggars, they are not drains on society, they are not unemployed - or if they are, they aren't willingly unemployed. Yet they struggle and try to make ends meet on so little.

I know what it means to struggle. I was a single mom in college and then I supported my family while my ex-husband spent most of his income.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to shop at a place like Wal-Mart. A company that makes billions every year and can't even take care of its own workers is the ultimate in injustice in my opinion. I don't care that they have done a good deed here or there when you look at the alarming statistics about the people employed by Wal-Mart, there is NOTHING that would ever make me give my money to them.

[alienlovechild 75]

In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.

So if they were completely unemployed because they didn't work at Walmart they'd save the taxpayers how much?

[dalegg 143]

This might be the way to save the economy.

Giving this some thought this week, and since I believe the rising number of low income earners are the cause of California's budget crisis- I've got the solution- raise their salaries! I propose that minimum wage be raised to $12 an hour- a $4.00 increase.

But- to make up the cost to employers so they don't just raise their prices and thus negate the economic impact of people with more money, we lower capitol gains and other taxes placed on businesses just enough to offset their payroll increase.

A $4.00 increase in people's salaries will immediately stimulate the economy and the dollars they spend will make up for the tax dollars lost by lowering taxes to businesses. This and the fact that since they are earning more they will be in a higher tax bracket and thus contributing more to the state and federal incomes. This is a more permanant stimulus than a $600 check that people will simply use to pay off debt. People with a $4 an hour rate increase will once again spend themselves into unrecoverable debt like good americans and our problems will be solved!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This might be the way to save the economy.

Giving this some thought this week, and since I believe the rising number of low income earners are the cause of California's budget crisis- I've got the solution- raise their salaries! I propose that minimum wage be raised to $12 an hour- a $4.00 increase.

But- to make up the cost to employers so they don't just raise their prices and thus negate the economic impact of people with more money, we lower capitol gains and other taxes placed on businesses just enough to offset their payroll increase.

A $4.00 increase in people's salaries will immediately stimulate the economy and the dollars they spend will make up for the tax dollars lost by lowering taxes to businesses. This and the fact that since they are earning more they will be in a higher tax bracket and thus contributing more to the state and federal incomes. This is a more permanant stimulus than a $600 check that people will simply use to pay off debt. People with a $4 an hour rate increase will once again spend themselves into unrecoverable debt like good americans and our problems will be solved!

Hmmmm...very interesting. I like that your thinking outside the box!

[alienlovechild 75]

A $4.00 increase in people's salaries will immediately stimulate the economy and the dollars they spend will make up for the tax dollars lost by lowering taxes to businesses.

Ignores that inflation will go up and negate the pay increase.

we lower capitol gains and other taxes placed on businesses just enough to offset their payroll increase.

A 36% pay increase would have to be offset by some pretty sharp decreases in capital gains which liberals claim only benefit the rich so that's not gonna happen. Ironically, low wage earners benefit most from shopping at places like Walmart and increasing the minimum wage will boost Walmart's profits even higher.

"Covered nonexempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage of not less than $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Overtime pay at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay is required after 40 hours of work in a workweek."

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A $4.00 increase in people's salaries will immediately stimulate the economy and the dollars they spend will make up for the tax dollars lost by lowering taxes to businesses.

Ignores that inflation will go up and negate the pay increase.

Not in a direct 1:1 ratio. Only for goods and services that were typically paying lower pay. So, if you ate a lot at McDonald's before, expect to pay a little more for your burger, but if you're in the market to buy a car - chances are, the price will remain relatively the same. Now go get the car hand washed....that's a different story.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Aubretia Edick's statement "Once in a blue moon I'll go into Save-A-Lot and I'll get some meat; eggs is kinda like a luxury kind of thing" seems rather counterintuitive (last i checked, eggs are a cheaper source of protein than meats).

[dalegg 143]

A $4.00 increase in people's salaries will immediately stimulate the economy and the dollars they spend will make up for the tax dollars lost by lowering taxes to businesses.

Ignores that inflation will go up and negate the pay increase.

I thought about that. But it shouldn't if merchants hold the line on prices. In this case maybe we even need to implement a 6 month price freeze. Theoretically there would be no need to raise prices because of the increased foot traffic into stores caused by all the people having more money in their pockets.

we lower capitol gains and other taxes placed on businesses just enough to offset their payroll increase.

A 36% pay increase would have to be offset by some pretty sharp decreases in capital gains which liberals claim only benefit the rich so that's not gonna happen.

Ironically, low wage earners benefit most from shopping at places like Walmart and increasing the minimum wage will boost Walmart's profits even higher.

But see, this is where the bipartism traits of this plan come in. Democrats love the idea of the living wage. Give it to them. Republicans love the idea of lower business taxes. Give it to them. Everyone is happy! What's wrong with boosting Walmart's profits if they are compensating their employees the way Democrats have been demanding? Edited February 21, 2009 by dalegg

[spookyturtle 9,466]

In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.

So if they were completely unemployed because they didn't work at Walmart they'd save the taxpayers how much?

Good point.

[lostinblue 1,989]

In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.

So if they were completely unemployed because they didn't work at Walmart they'd save the taxpayers how much?

Good point.

Number one reason for poverty .....single unwed mothers. The trouble with this country is somewhere around the time Johnson was president and the great society was thought of Uncle Sam became Daddy to a whole lot of single parent households. Where are the fathers in this mess . Why are there families with children sired by a half dozen different men. Nothing is ever said about being this . We have a culture of do what feels good now and to hell what comes along in 9 months. Uncle Sam will provide .

[MMW 2]

A $4.00 increase in people's salaries will immediately stimulate the economy and the dollars they spend will make up for the tax dollars lost by lowering taxes to businesses.

Ignores that inflation will go up and negate the pay increase.

we lower capitol gains and other taxes placed on businesses just enough to offset their payroll increase.

A 36% pay increase would have to be offset by some pretty sharp decreases in capital gains which liberals claim only benefit the rich so that's not gonna happen. Ironically, low wage earners benefit most from shopping at places like Walmart and increasing the minimum wage will boost Walmart's profits even higher.

"Covered nonexempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage of not less than $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Overtime pay at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay is required after 40 hours of work in a workweek."

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/

Yes but it is not required to pay OT in several business areas. Like food service.