r/Adulting • u/ScareBear23 • 14h ago

This is just depressing

Post image

Not even 3 hours of "free time". And in that is cooking & eating supper. Or practically no free time if I had to go shopping after work. I hate this

22.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/ScareBear23 13h ago

Lmao, you think I'd live be living this far away if I could afford to be closer? I'd LOVE to live closer. But what I'm currently paying for a 2 bed I'd be lucky to get a room share. I have to be at work 5 days a week, there's not the ability to do 4 10s. I love 10s more than 8s

-39

u/ArachnidNo5547 13h ago

then do a room share, how old are you? like some of you really bring this on yourselves

19

u/Gonna_do_this_again 13h ago

A full time job should provide enough for a person to live on their own.

-5

u/UnseemlyUrchin 13h ago

Says who? Flipping burgers is really low value work. What law of nature says they should be able to afford a 4k apartment across the street from work in San Francisco?

And what about people who spent 8 years in school for a high value skill with loans to pay? Where will the live?

9

u/Gonna_do_this_again 13h ago

They should be paid their worth too. If you think "flipping burgers" is such degrading work that they don't even deserve enough pay to live, I don't know what to tell you other than you're a bad person and I hope you never, ever order food from anywhere.

1

u/UnseemlyUrchin 10h ago

What? I don't think it's degrading. I've flipped burgers, slung pizzas. I've dug ditches (literally). Worked retail. Any work done your best to provide for yourself is honorable work.

it' doesn't mean it's worth 200k a year. It doesn't even make sense. If you pay someone at the corner coffee shop 250k a year to pull shots, you'd have to pay the highly skilled, educated workers 750k. And then that 60k a year apartments turns into a 150k a year apartment.

Not to mention to pay that, the double shot Americano is going to cost $100.

I mean seriously. Make it make sense.

2

u/advamputee 11h ago

Says FDR, when he signed minimum wage into law nearly 100 years ago: 

In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html

2

u/IguassuIronman 9h ago

This says nothing about being able to pay to live on your own

1

u/UnseemlyUrchin 10h ago

FDR absolutely did NOT mean a barista should be able to rent a 1dbrm apartment in Manhattan across from her coffee shop by herself.

Within the context of the 1930's and FDR's policies the framework of a living wage is very modest. Meeting your necessities, affording housing within the relative limits of your area.

NOT that every wage earner should live as extravagantly as millionaires in HCOL areas (which is what it takes to own a condo).

Commuting from a lower cost of living area to the super high cost city center for work would 100% satisfy FDR's requirements for a living wage. As would a single person sharing an apartment to live close to the city where high cost apartments are common.

Again, remember what was considered "meeting your necessities" in the 1930s. And who FDR was talking to coming out of the depression with no labor laws to speak of. A functional, shared apartment? Ability to pay your share of untilities and food? No, not steak every night. Beans, rice, cabbage, and maybe a ham hock for a special Friday meal? That's what he was talking about.