I am from the US and when I hear fast food workers being referred to as middle class it always surprises me. Can you really afford to rent or buy a house, or buy a relatively new car, or pay on any substantial debt with the income from KFC? I guess more importantly do we really expect that someone should be able to? Should even the lowest paying of jobs be enough to do such things? I know as a kid working a minimum wage job I never expected that I should be able afford more than gas, snacks, and games until I had a "real job". I am curious if our economy could even afford to provide a "living wage" for virtually all jobs.
I didn't realize that minimum wage earners make enough to afford video games. I realize that minimum wage is not much money, but if a KFC worker tunnels her off-time into something other than personal growth, that's a different problem.
Video games are dirt cheap, especially on a per-hour basis. A given game may be expensive, but if you just want "a good game", even $10 can buy you some good stuff if you spend it carefully. Hardware may not be free, but if you don't mind not having the latest & greatest it isn't necessarily expensive compared to other entertainment options either.
I seem to recall reading an article several years ago about how video games are becoming the entertainment of choice for poor people, because it is becoming the cheapest option available (again, especially per hour). And good stuff has gotten cheaper since I read that.
"I never expected that I should be able afford more than gas, snacks, and games until I had a "real job"."
Rent/mortgage is notably absent from that list, so presumably they do not expect a minimum wage earner to be living on their own. With that assumption, it is reasonable that a minimum wage earner is making enough to keep themselves entertained when not working (though ideally they should of course be saving).
Minimum wage really is not built as an independent living wage (let alone a living wage for people that have children, despite what some people think). Some other form of support is assumed.
"Minimum wage really is not built as an independent living wage"
This is exactly what I have always thought which is why I am always surprised to hear outrage about minimum wage jobs that do not provide a living wage yet they seem to think they should...or at least that is what I assume when they propose unions as a "solution".
The purchasing power of a minimum wage salary peaked during the 60s and 70s, which has given many people some very unrealistic ideas on what the minimum wage is for, and what they should be able to do with it.
It isn't just memories of the 60s though, there is some strong "the grass was greener on on the other side" biasing going on. The minimum wage in 1968, in today's money, was $10.56. Hardly the "buy the house in the suburbs, two cars, and raise a family of five" type of salary that many people mistakenly remember it as: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history...
Often people outraged about the minimum wage will talk about a "living wage". Living wage, as it is talked about today in "minimum wage outrage discussions" is a horrifically poorly defined concept. Nobody ever mentions just what neighborhood a minimum wage should enable you to live in (Malibu? I'd love to get a minimum wage job and afford a home in Malibu...) or just how large of a family this concept of a "livable wage" should support. Is a "living wage" what it takes to afford rent, with a roommate? Is it what it takes to afford rent with a stay-at-home SO? Afford rent with a small child? Afford rent with three small children?
Even if we bought into the idea of "minimum wage should be a livable wage", we'd have to specify a cutoff for our "livable wage" definition. Right now that cutoff is "is a dependent, has no dependents of their own", but people often act offended at that concept.
Its enough if you're a kid still living at home under the age of 18 :) but you're right about anyone beyond that, I would hope they don't spend the money on video games!
