How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less • Hacker News Board

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#111

Post by _pius » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:11 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #88

yummyfajitas wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pressure does not come from being stigmatized but from the fact that a single person income is not enough to feed a family of four in plenty of places. Which places? The fact is, plenty of people survive and overfeed themselves in spite of working less than 27 weeks/year (80% of the poor fall into this category). If a person can't feed their family working full time, they need to move out of Manhattan.

Yup. Food has never in history been cheaper as a proportion of total income. Especially if one person stays home to cook all meals, you can feed a family of four with amazing food for $200 a month. Yes, you need to move out of Manhattan, and give up non-essentials, but a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four. Now if that person actually makes an _average_ wage, they can al…

"...a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four."

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not "societal expectations" that cause lots of gainfully employed people in the United States to be part of the working poor and hungry.

As an example, the minimum wage in DC is $8.25, which yields $1320/month. The actual amount would be even lower after taxes, but let's even forget about that.

About the absolute rock bottom price you'll pay for a room in this city is $600/month and that's assuming you're in a group living situation or a pretty bad neighborhood. Since a family of four will need two rooms to be even reasonably comfortable, maybe you luck out and grab a similarly crappy two-bedroom for $900/month. So now, you pay your rent, somehow keep your utilities hovering around $120/month (good luck with that) and you've got $300/month left.

But wait, now you've got to get to work (and to the grocery store, etc.). Minimum bus fare in this city is $1.50. If you (and just you, not your kids or spouse) make a round trip every day plus, say, three extra trips a month, you will spend about $100.

So now you've got $200 per month left to feed and clothe four people. But what about insurance? Savings? Unforeseen expenses? Doing something nice with your kids every now and again?

At what point does any of this sound easy to you?

If you want to be ignorant, that's your business, but please try not to peddle this BS to others who don't know any better. It's really irresponsible to further the notion that those less fortunate than us are having a difficult time making ends meet because of societal expectations. Ugh.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#112

Post by zaidf » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:15 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #108

mortenjorck wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone at my office had a kid not long ago, and after he and his wife weighed daycare options versus her returning from maternity leave, they realized it was pretty much a wash.

It's certainly not a wash once you factor in the opportunity cost of sitting at home and letting your skills and contact network fall to the wayside. It's a lot easier to find a job (or get your old job back) if you start working as soon as your child is old enough for daycare than if you wait 6 years for your child to start school. In addition your salary after having worked those years will probably be quite a bit…

Agreed, it's a whole different lifestyle. My own family's culture is such that the kids are expected to grow up and support the parents. So when you grow up, the parents don't need a job. My friends in the US find this super odd but that is pretty standard in many Indian cultures.

Also, as you are growing up, the parents typically make a bigger investment than an average parent. I never have to "repay" my Dad any loan. Nor does he need to repay me. Does it all balance out in the end? It may or may not; it's pretty irrelevant.

My mom gave up practicing medicine after her first kid. She never really had to worry about not being able to return because she didn't plan to.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#113

Post by charltones » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:20 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #108

mortenjorck wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone at my office had a kid not long ago, and after he and his wife weighed daycare options versus her returning from maternity leave, they realized it was pretty much a wash.

It's certainly not a wash once you factor in the opportunity cost of sitting at home and letting your skills and contact network fall to the wayside. It's a lot easier to find a job (or get your old job back) if you start working as soon as your child is old enough for daycare than if you wait 6 years for your child to start school. In addition your salary after having worked those years will probably be quite a bit…

The money is not the only factor that can make it a wash. The practicalities of where suitable day care is located and the hours they operate mean that for many people returning to work just isn't an option, even if you can afford it. My wife worked freelance in TV before having our daughter. The unsociable hours alone meant that it was going to be unlikely she could return to work, despite being desperate to work again. Add the fact that no local childcare is able to offer 5 days a week without a year or more's notice. Then add the fact that her salary would pay only about 50% of the childcare costs. Add the fact that my own work + commute means I'd never be able to drop off or pick up my daughter in time. It doesn't add up. Maybe we need to move country :)

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#114

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:22 PM UTC

_pius wrote: post #111

zeteo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Food has never in history been cheaper as a proportion of total income. Especially if one person stays home to cook all meals, you can feed a family of four with amazing food for $200 a month. Yes, you need to move out of Manhattan, and give up non-essentials, but a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four. Now if that person actually makes an _average_ wage, they can al…

"...a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four." With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not "societal expectations" that cause lots of gainfully employed people in the United States to be part of the working poor and hungry. As an example, the minimum wage in DC is $8.25, which yields $1320/month. The actual amount would be even lower after taxes…

You've got a great theory. And yet, it somehow does not fit the data.

As of 2001 (the most recent data I've seen), more than 2/3 of poor households had at least 2 rooms/person, and only 6% were overcrowded. Just under 3/4 owned a car.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi...

In the same year, 80% of the poor neither had nor were looking for a job, so bus fare is irrelevant to most of them. (This number hasn't changed much up to 2008, I haven't seen 2009 data.)

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2001.pdf

It would seem that even most of the poor do not suffer the problems you describe.

(I'd love more current numbers, anyone have them?)

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#115

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:27 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #109

tptacek wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I'm not even joking. I don't look at school as day care, but whether you think that or you don't, you're not paying for someone to watch the kids while they're there. This isn't politics. It's a simple fact. You stick out 5 years or so with very expensive child care (maybe 4, for many families, where someone stays at home for the first year), and then two-income families make sense again.

I think I made the link with the joke because you used the words 'child care', but still that did not deserve a downmod.

Oh. You still need to pay for after-school child care; that's what I was referring to. School here gets out at 3:00PM; we get home from work around 6:00PM.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#116

Post by roboneal » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:32 PM UTC

dLuna wrote: post #91

dennisgorelik wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So high taxes make people more likely to maintain traditional family (husband works and wife runs the household).

High taxes have a tendency to mean cheaper child care. In general countries with high taxes have subsidised child care. I believe that high taxes would rather put a stop to the one-earner household since marginal effects on two incomes at X is usually a lot less than the tax on one income of 2X.

"High taxes have a tendency to mean cheaper child care."

Is subsidized child care, really cheaper - if you are paying higher taxes to receive the subsidies? Kind of an odd logic.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#117

Post by _pius » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:33 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #114

_pius wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four." With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not "societal expectations" that cause lots of gainfully employed people in the United States to be part of the working poor and hungry. As an example, the minimum wage in DC is $8.25, which yields $1320/month. The actual amount would be even lower after taxes…

You've got a great theory. And yet, it somehow does not fit the data. As of 2001 (the most recent data I've seen), more than 2/3 of poor households had at least 2 rooms/person, and only 6% were overcrowded. Just under 3/4 owned a car. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... In the same year, 80% of the poor neither had nor were looking for a job, so bus fare is irrelevant to most of them. (Thi…

It fits.

The Heritage Foundation study assailed the Census Bureau's definition of poverty. My point made no comment about that; I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income, which is preposterous.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#118

Post by gaius » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:42 PM UTC

parenthesis wrote: post #96

gaius wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were true it would be called "equalism".

If `civil rights' means `equal (to whites) rights for non-whites' and `gay rights' means `equal (to straights) rights for gays', then the civil rights and gay rights movements are both `equalism'. A group which sees itself as oppressed can't just wishy-washily campaign under a banner of `equalism' if it wants to effect change. It must first identify itself as a group of people with something in common, and which is s…

But civil rights is not "black rights", do you see?

-isms, generally, exist to advance the interests of their sponsors, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#119

Post by gaius » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:44 PM UTC

roboneal wrote: post #116

dLuna wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High taxes have a tendency to mean cheaper child care. In general countries with high taxes have subsidised child care. I believe that high taxes would rather put a stop to the one-earner household since marginal effects on two incomes at X is usually a lot less than the tax on one income of 2X.

"High taxes have a tendency to mean cheaper child care." Is subsidized child care, really cheaper - if you are paying higher taxes to receive the subsidies? Kind of an odd logic.

Yes it is cheaper if it's other people's taxes. That's why no-one campaigns for tax cuts so they can afford childcare.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#120

Post by gaius » Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 3:48 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #69

I wonder how she does her taxes.

Ha ha, a little while ago The Times did a reader's questions interview with Belle du Jour and all anyone wanted to know was if she'd paid her taxes. Yes, she said, her accountant does it as any other professional services.