A country of low-wage McJobs
I hate this about the US. Hate it. It’s contemptible and awful.
In Europe, many people scoff at the US as a country of low-wage McJobs with paltry benefits – often no paid sick days, no paid vacation and no health insurance. In Denmark, a McDonald’s hamburger flipper averages $22 an hour (with six weeks’ paid vacation), while in the US, fast-food jobs pay half that on average.
Plus no health insurance.
You might wonder: how can the United States, the world’s wealthiest nation, be a low-wage economy? Of the 37 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the unofficial club of rich and near-rich nations, the US has the third-highest percentage of low-wage workers, with nearly one in four workers defined as low-wage. Only Latvia and Romania are worse. (That study defines low-wage as earning less than two-thirds of a nation’s median wage.) In another study, Brookings found that 53 million Americans hold low-wage jobs, with a median pay of $10.22 an hour and median annual earnings of $17,950.
Yet we’re a rich country. There’s no excuse.
The US also has the lowest minimum wage among the G7 industrial nations in terms of purchasing power. America’s $7.25-an-hour federal minimum is 38% lower than Germany’s and 30% lower than Britain’s, Canada’s and France’s. This helps explain why the US has among the worst income inequality of the 37 OECD nations – only Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica and Bulgaria have greater inequality. And the US has the third highest poverty rate; only Hungary and Costa Rica are worse.
Yet we’re richer as a country than any of those.
Corporations, along with their Republican allies, overwhelmingly oppose a $15 minimum; in doing so, however, they ignore the will of the vast majority of Americans. According to a Pew poll, Americans favor a $15 minimum by 67% to 33%. While low-wage workers would be most vulnerable to any job losses caused by a higher minimum, lower-income Americans shows even greater support for a $15 minimum. Pew found that 74% of Americans making under $40,000 a year support a $15 minimum wage, as do 56% of Republicans making under $40,000. Last November, Floridians – even as their state went for Trump – voted 61% to 39% in favor of raising their state’s minimum to $15, joining eight other states that have approved a $15 minimum.
Despite such strong public backing for a $15 minimum, it looks doubtful that even one Republican senator – even though the Republican party now describes itself as the party of workers – will vote for a $15 minimum.
Well you see it’s like this – the Republican definition of “worker” is “racist white man with guns and MAGA cap.” It’s got nothing to do with wages or unions or benefits.
Just noticing how Costa Rica has worse income inequality and higher poverty rate than the US, and the only people I know who have been there (3 exactly), and want to go back, also voted for Trump. There’s probably some connection that I haven’t quite noodled out.
Twiliter, are they wealthy?
That’s how they define American, too. The only people they consider worth giving a damn about…and they’d sell them out in a second if they could get a silver dollar for them.
I’ve been in one of those (many of those) low-wage jobs. Take off sick, you not only have no leave, you might have no job when you get better. They have full control over how many hours you work, and can write you off a schedule for being pregnant, or being sufficiently unresponsive to the advances of the boss, or any other goddamn reason. “We just don’t need that many people on for that shift, so we’ve adjusted hours.” You aren’t fired, so you can’t draw any benefits; you get 2 hours a week and don’t make enough money for the gas to drive there. Yeah, I’ve been in that situation. Motorcycle accident put me out of work; when I came back….one hour a week. And I lived ten miles from work, and could only drive the old clunker of a car that got crappy mileage.
It’s no life for anyone. I was fortunate and got out, but a lot of people aren’t so fortunate.
Holms, no, working class. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Funny how those who believe so fervently in “American exceptionalism” never seem to have this sort of exceptionalism in mind. For a nation that prides itself as “the best in the world” (I know many countries do, but this is the American Brand), it sure doesn’t want to do much to earn that title. It can be argued that, perhaps, it once was, or at least it was better, in some ways, for some people, than it is now, but for too many, it now seems to be worse. Resting on one’s laurels comes at a cost, not just to national reputation, but for the well being of the masses of its citizens. You would think that would count for something. Unfortunately, the rich have been able to convince many of the poor that America is still Number One, while preventing implementation of economic policies that would make it a better place for those poor people to live.
Many people in France, especially those who have never set foot in the USA, think of the USA as a paradise. When I tell them that they already live in a paradise they don’t believe it. I’m not so naive as to think France is a paradise for everyone, but the people who live very badly in deprived areas wouldn’t be any better living on the sort of salary they could expect in the USA.
I’m saddened by what you say about Costa Rica, because when I was first interested in such things, in the 1960s, Costa Rica was held up as one of only three stable democracies in Latin America, along with Uruguay and Chile. Since that time Costa Rica has remained stable and democratic, while Uruguay and Chile went through very bad periods from 1973 to 1992, with both restoring democracy after the dictatorships ended. I have much more knowledge of Chile than of the other two, and one thing that has been obvious to me, but many middle-class Chileans prefer not to recognize it, is that when Pinochet and the army lost political power their economic legacy was barely changed. Nearly 30 years later the economical system created by Pinochet and the Chicago boys is still in operation.
Back in about 1990 I used to say that there were four things that would never change: the USSR would dominate Eastern Europe, Pinochet and his successors would be in charge in Chile, South Africa would still have Apartheid, and if you took the highway through Cannes they would be digging up the road. By 1993 the USSR was gone, Pinochet was gone, Apartheid was gone, but they were still digging up the road in Cannes (that finished eventually, too). As with Chile, the disappearance of Apartheid has not led to the egalitarian society that many hoped for. I went to South Africa in 1990 and 2000. In 1990 Apartheid still existed officially but it was on its last legs. In 2000 it was abolished, but poor people (nearly all Black, of course) were still very poor.