Work Reform

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] groucho@retrolemmy.com 10 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Or she's in section 8 housing, which means the government is subsidizing WalMart in two ways. Or she had a better job when she applied for the apartment. There's lots of explanations.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago

You neglected the most likely one: The landlord's exorbitant rent hikes.

Never rent. Always buy. Even if all you can buy is a 30-year-old RV, you're better off with that than a rent payment.

The only routes out of poverty are equity and the lottery. Renting always deprives you of equity.

parent

[+] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social -14 points 2 months ago (6 children)

If she has a partner with an income then she isnt trying to afford $1400 rent on $1700 income

If she has a partner without an income, then the story is still sus af because no landlord would rent to someone for that far over 1/3rd of their income.

The math aint mathing. And $1400 is nothing in some places and is more than you need for a 2-3 bedroom house in others. Its all about location

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

If she has a partner without an income, then the story is still sus af because no landlord would rent to someone for that far over 1/3rd of their income.

I uhhh.... you don't know very many poor people, do you?

There are a number of ways someone could end up in this situation, including losing a higher paying job that they had when they moved in.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago*

i know a person that was literally tyring to pay for 4k rent with multiple jobs. she luckily was able to move out at some point to a reasonable city. landlords dont care, unless its a high demand area, where they get too many applicants. in the midwest or lcol states, they are mostly 350k-500k for 1 story houses now, assuming 1 would want to live in a red state.

parent

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Bro who cares if the story is a little exaggerated. It's still true that we are over charged and under payed.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I personally care if the story is presented as true

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago

All of the essential, general information is true: Walmart, et al, deliberately short worker hours to avoid having to pay benefits. The end result of that is workers forced to try to live on the income from one or more part-time jobs, without employer-provided benefits like health or dental insurance. Without such benefits, they either have to pay those costs out of their regular pay, or we have to pay those costs on their behalf.

The exact amount of rent is not relevant, nor are any of the particular circumstances of this or any individual worker. The general condition is more than sufficient to garner outrage.

parent

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

At the end of the day it's a Twitter post about a second hand person. You'll never know if it's true.