New over the top chinese PHEV

[turbopilot]

Yes. That is why corporations NEVER move their manufacturing to China...

Does this statement include Tesla's Gigafactory in Shanghai?

Sponsored

 

[jcaspar]

Ya. I've had people who make things tell me they can get 100 parts made in China for the price of one made in America. (And for the record, before you get all "Here we go with random claims", the parts being made were sprayer nozzles for crop sprayers)

I never thought I'd live to see the day where people are cheerleading China, but here we are.

Ive heard the same from US companies that say because of no environmental regulations, starvation wages and no unions, Chinese companies can make products for less than the cost of the RAW MATERIALS in the US. Hard to compete in this situation.

 

[Larrymoe]

Ive heard the same from US companies that say because of no environmental regulations, starvation wages and no unions, Chinese companies can make products for less than the cost of the RAW MATERIALS in the US. Hard to compete in this situation.

The guy said that he knows that 70% of the product made there is going to be unusable, but he's getting 30 made for the price of 1.

 

[HammaMan]

Yes. That is why corporations NEVER move their manufacturing to China...

As everything moved to china, especially electronics, intermediaries are in-country. If you're manufacturing complex devices with dozens of dependencies like advanced electronics, a lot of which are in a single region, supply chains are much easier to deal with. They also all take off a month for chinese new year where very little activity takes place usually impacting workflow for about 6 weeks.

"Slave labor" is a great talking point, but it's a grossly incorrect statement. Chinese workers are paid more than mexican workers, yet nobody calls mexican manufacturers "slave labor". Indian and other asian countries pay even less, do you call them slave labor? I haven't seen it. China has completely lost its labor cost competition vs competing nations, even to the one south of the US border. The only reason to continue the trend now is because china has the plants and knowhow.

The biggest threat to moving to china is the IP transfer that takes place. The only company that has been able to not take that hit was tesla, and the reason for that is because they trained an army of workers on how to build vehicles and those workers and processes/lessons have slowly migrated out to their industries at large giving them a huge springboard for launching their current automotive industry off of. The only ones NOT taking advantage of those processes and techniques are US legacy auto.

 

[Larrymoe]

"Slave labor" is a great talking point, but it's a grossly incorrect statement. Chinese workers are paid more than mexican workers, yet nobody calls mexican manufacturers "slave labor". Indian and other asian countries pay even less, do you call them slave labor? I haven't seen it. China has completely lost its labor cost competition vs competing nations, even to the one south of the US border. The only reason to continue the trend now is because china has the plants and knowhow.

Yes they are.

The Walmartization of the American economy leans heavily on slave labor. So, while we sit around and blame each other over slavery that ended 160 years ago, we all patronize slavery every single day and don't blink a single eye at it. Our entire way of life is built on tacking advantage of what are essentially slaves.

 

[HammaMan]

Yes they are.

No they are not. Wilfully accepting a position and a compensation rate is not slavery. I think you need to do a wee bit of research

The Walmartization of the American economy leans heavily on slave labor. So, while we sit around and blame each other over slavery that ended 160 years ago, we all patronize slavery every single day and don't blink a single eye at it. Our entire way of life is built on tacking advantage of what are essentially slaves.

Their wages are more than able to sustain them and provide for their families. That's not slavery, that's called being employed --- you fail to grasp purchase price parity. The average income in the US's poorest state is higher than that of pretty much every EU country in raw values, but not PPP. Chinese are paid above US minimum wage. You don't even have to leave the US to see this. If you make $100k in NYC, you're damn near homeless. If you make $100k in just about any rural area, especially w/ lack of state income tax, you can live like a king.

 

[Suns_PSD]

Price levels are 45/50/$55k for the 3 trims. Top trim ~850hp PHEV, 50kWh batt, 650 mile highway range (batt + fuel tank), 3C charging w/ 120 highway miles in electric only. At least 9 cameras in it (didn't really dive into the technicals on it) -- top trim has L3 ADAS powered by NVIDIA w/ HD aka 4D radar and LIDAR.
HUD has blindspot cameras, twin 36" 6k screens. All 3 rows have heated/cooled/massage seats. Based on a volvo platform w/ interior designed in sweden (chinese own volvo now).
For the same price as an explorer ST -- bonkers. Currently only a 100% tariff on chinese vehicles imported to the US so I don't think we'll see one anytime soon, though they did take a dozen different vehicles to Alaska a couple weeks back for testing.

It's an amazing vehicle. Thanks for showing it. Not sure it does us much good however!

Some feel that protectionist trade policies benefit more than they hurt Americans. I have my opinions on this, but they are irrelevant. However, as a result of these policies, we are unlikely to have access to this sort of vehicle for at least 3.75 more years.

Beyond access, affordability of vehicles, even domestic vehicles, is going to become a significantly increased challenge, for Americans, starting within days. This won't change as even with tariffs it's still cheaper to outsource many things. Building entire new plants, that might be deemed irrelevant in just 3.75 years is going to be a rare occurrence and even American producers (steel for example) have already raised their prices, since their competition is being reduced.

Just like we pay much more for our medical care, soon we are about to pay much more for our cars than the rest of the developed world.

Furthermore, cheap AND American oil are incongruent ideas. You can either have cheap foreign oil, or expensive American oil.

Not getting political, but as auto enthusiast, things are about to change for us. Although my truck is not brand new, I'm glad I have a good condition sort of dream truck in my possession as I'm likely to be driving it for a long time.

Hang on folks!

 

[Larrymoe]

No they are not. Wilfully accepting a position and a compensation rate is not slavery. I think you need to do a wee bit of research

Their wages are more than able to sustain them and provide for their families. That's not slavery, that's called being employed --- you fail to grasp purchase price parity. The average income in the US's poorest state is higher than that of pretty much every EU country in raw values, but not PPP. Chinese are paid above US minimum wage. You don't even have to leave the US to see this. If you make $100k in NYC, you're damn near homeless. If you make $100k in just about any rural area, especially w/ lack of state income tax, you can live like a king.

Sure.

 

[Suns_PSD]

No they are not. Wilfully accepting a position and a compensation rate is not slavery. I think you need to do a wee bit of research

Their wages are more than able to sustain them and provide for their families. That's not slavery, that's called being employed --- you fail to grasp purchase price parity. The average income in the US's poorest state is higher than that of pretty much every EU country in raw values, but not PPP. Chinese are paid above US minimum wage. You don't even have to leave the US to see this. If you make $100k in NYC, you're damn near homeless. If you make $100k in just about any rural area, especially w/ lack of state income tax, you can live like a king.

Actually, it's well documented that many full-time jobs in America including those at Walmart's, are still poverty wages and that people are working full time yet still qualify for government benefits. So, in essence, the American taxpayer is subsidizing Walmart to be able to pay non-livable wages.

Unless you provide nearly free childcare so that people can work low wage jobs and require any full-time job to provide health care benefits with the minimum pay for that job, in that particular area to be able to at least be just out of poverty, although it's not slavery it's still essentially forced labor at unlivable wages. They have to have jobs that don't pay enough to actually survive, much less thrive.

You said so your self that in NYC $100K is damn near homeless. Although I think that's a bit of exaggeration, if someone works in that area full time should their starting income be enough that they are not 'damn near homeless'?

You can't claim that low wage work is just for students and kids when they are getting started, when fully 50% of full-time employees in America are paid less than $20/ hour.

 

[HammaMan]

Let grok answer this one

Claim 1: Many full-time jobs in America, including at Walmart, are "poverty wages," and workers qualify for government benefits, meaning taxpayers subsidize Walmart’s low wages.
Refutation:
While it’s true that some full-time jobs, including entry-level positions at companies like Walmart, pay wages that may fall below certain "living wage" thresholds (which vary by region), this doesn’t inherently mean taxpayers are "subsidizing" Walmart in a direct or unique way. Walmart, like any employer, pays wages based on market conditions, skill requirements, and supply and demand for labor (flooding the job market w/ 10s of millions of border crossers depresses labor compensation) . Government benefits (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid) exist to support individuals whose income falls below certain levels, regardless of where they work. This is a feature of the broader social safety net, not a specific subsidy to Walmart or any single company.
Data from Walmart itself shows that, as of 2023, their average hourly wage for U.S. employees was over $17.50, with many full-time workers earning more depending on location and role. The federal poverty line for a single person in 2025 is approximately $15,000-$16,000 annually (adjusted for inflation), and for a family of four, it’s around $32,000-$34,000. A full-time worker (40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) at $17.50/hour earns about $36,400 annually—above the poverty line for an individual and close to or above it for a small family, depending on circumstances. While some workers may still qualify for benefits due to dependents or regional cost-of-living differences, this isn’t unique to Walmart; it applies across industries. The claim exaggerates the extent to which Walmart relies on taxpayer "subsidies" versus the reality of a broad welfare system supporting low-income workers generally.
Claim 2: Without nearly free childcare and mandatory healthcare benefits tied to a "minimum livable wage," low-wage jobs are "essentially forced labor at unlivable wages."
Refutation:
The term "forced labor" implies coercion or lack of choice, which doesn’t align with the legal or practical reality of employment in the U.S. Workers at low-wage jobs, while often facing financial pressure, voluntarily enter employment contracts and can leave for better opportunities. The labor market isn’t static—job mobility exists, and low-wage roles often serve as entry points, not lifelong traps. Calling it "forced labor" is a rhetorical flourish, not a substantiated claim.
The idea that childcare and healthcare must be "nearly free" or mandated ignores economic trade-offs. Childcare costs are high (averaging $10,000-$15,000/year per child in many areas), but subsidizing it entirely would shift costs elsewhere (e.g., taxes or reduced wages). Many full-time jobs, including at Walmart, already offer healthcare benefits—Walmart provides plans with employer contributions starting at $30/month for employees. The "livable wage" concept is subjective and varies widely: MIT’s Living Wage Calculator shows a single adult in a low-cost area needs ~$15/hour, while a family in a high-cost area might need $25+/hour. Most full-time jobs meet or approach this for individuals, undermining the "unlivable" label for all low-wage work.
Claim 3: In NYC, $100K is "damn near homeless," so full-time starting income should ensure workers aren’t in that position.
Refutation:
The "$100K is damn near homeless" claim is an exaggeration for effect. In NYC, the median household income is around $70,000-$75,000 (2023 data), and $100,000 provides a comfortable, if not luxurious, lifestyle for a single person. Per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "housing cost burden" kicks in when rent exceeds 30% of income. A $100,000 earner paying $2,500/month (30% of income) can afford many apartments in outer boroughs or shared setups in Manhattan—far from "homeless." Homelessness in NYC stems more from systemic issues (mental health, housing shortages) than wages alone.
Should starting incomes guarantee a certain lifestyle? Market wages reflect supply, demand, and skill levels, not a mandate to match local costs perfectly. A full-time minimum-wage worker in NYC ($15/hour, or $31,200/year) isn’t "damn near homeless" with roommates or public housing options, though they’d struggle alone. Higher starting wages sound appealing but could reduce hiring, especially for small businesses, as labor costs rise.
Claim 4: You can’t claim low-wage work is for students and kids when 50% of full-time U.S. employees earn less than $20/hour.
Refutation:
The statistic—50% of full-time workers earning under $20/hour—needs context. Bureau of Labor Statistics data (2023) shows median hourly earnings for full-time workers at ~$22/hour, meaning half earn less. But this includes diverse roles: retail, food service, manufacturing, etc. Many of these aren’t "student" jobs but entry-level or low-skill positions held by adults. The claim assumes $20/hour is a universal livability threshold, which it isn’t—costs vary by region, and $20/hour ($41,600/year) exceeds poverty lines and MIT’s living wage for individuals in most areas.
Low-wage work isn’t exclusively for "students and kids," nor do critics typically claim it is. It’s a strawman to suggest otherwise. Instead, these jobs reflect economic realities: not all roles command high pay, and not all workers have skills for higher-wage positions. The labor market offers progression—many start low and move up. Painting 50% of full-time workers as trapped in "unlivable" wages ignores that many live sustainably, especially with dual incomes or in lower-cost areas.
Overall Response:
The statement leans on emotional appeals ("forced labor," "subsidizing Walmart") and broad generalizations ("unlivable wages") that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Wages reflect market dynamics, not a conspiracy to exploit taxpayers or workers. Government benefits supplement income across industries, not just retail giants. And while low-wage work poses challenges, it’s not the dystopian trap described—people navigate it, advance, or supplement it. Solutions like free childcare or mandated higher wages sound noble but sidestep practical trade-offs like higher taxes, inflation, or job losses. The data and logic suggest a more nuanced reality than the statement portrays.

Gemini wrote a paper on it too if you're curious using over 100 websites.....
An Examination of Wage Levels, Benefits, and Government Assistance in the American Workforce: A Focus on Walmart
The discourse surrounding wage levels, employee benefits, and the role of public assistance in the United States is a critical component of ongoing societal discussions about economic equity and workforce well-being. The assertion that many full-time jobs in America, including those at major retailers like Walmart, constitute poverty wages, thereby necessitating taxpayer subsidization through government benefits, raises significant questions about the responsibilities of employers and the adequacy of current compensation structures. Concerns have also been voiced regarding the necessity of affordable childcare to facilitate participation in the workforce, the mandate for comprehensive healthcare benefits from full-time employers, and the sufficiency of starting incomes in high-cost urban centers. This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of these claims, utilizing available research and data to offer an evidence-based perspective on the realities of employment at Walmart and the broader context of low-wage work in America. By examining wage structures, the prevalence of government assistance, the provision of healthcare benefits, the definition of poverty wages in different regions, the demographics of lower-wage workers, the cost of childcare, and the interplay between minimum wage and the cost of living in metropolitan areas, this analysis seeks to either refute or contextualize the initial statement.

Examining Walmart's Wage Structure
Understanding the compensation provided by Walmart, one of the nation's largest employers, is central to evaluating the claim of poverty wages.

Average Hourly Wage for Full-Time Walmart Employees in the US
Walmart's corporate reporting for Fiscal Year 2024 indicates an average hourly wage exceeding $17.50 for its U.S. hourly associates, with more recent figures suggesting this average is "close to $18" . This self-reported average stands significantly above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, providing an initial indication that the compensation offered is not at the absolute lowest legal threshold. However, it is important to acknowledge that this figure represents an average across a vast workforce and may not reflect the wages of all full-time employees.

Data from other sources provides a more granular view. ZipRecruiter's analysis of Walmart employee salaries in Pennsylvania as of February 2025 shows an average hourly pay of $22.35, but with a wide range from a low of $7.35 to a high of $50.18 . The majority of salaries in Pennsylvania reportedly fall between $12.54 (25th percentile) and $28.12 (75th percentile), highlighting considerable wage disparity even within a single state. Nationally, Talent.com estimates the average Walmart salary to be $46,196 per year, which translates to approximately $22.21 per hour . These figures are generally higher than Walmart's self-reported average, potentially due to different data collection methodologies or the inclusion of various employee types beyond frontline associates.

Conversely, Payscale's data for Walmart.com employees indicates a lower average hourly rate of $15.07 . This discrepancy suggests that different segments within Walmart's operations, such as e-commerce versus brick-and-mortar retail, may have varying average wage levels. It is also worth noting that these figures can fluctuate based on the time of data collection and the specific roles included in the analysis.

Therefore, while Walmart's average hourly wage for frontline associates appears to be in the range of $17-$18, with some sources suggesting higher figures around $22, there is a clear distribution of wages, with some employees earning significantly less than the average. This variability underscores the need to consider the specific roles and locations when assessing whether these wages constitute "poverty wages."

Variations in Wages
Compensation at Walmart is not uniform and is influenced by several factors. Geographic location plays a significant role, as evidenced by ZipRecruiter's data showing higher average hourly wages in cities like Philadelphia ($25.00) compared to Erie ($20.69) within Pennsylvania . This likely reflects the differing costs of living and local labor market conditions in these areas.

The specific job role also dictates the wage level. Entry-level positions such as cashiers often have lower hourly rates compared to roles with more responsibility, such as team leads or those in specialized departments . Furthermore, corporate positions within Walmart typically offer significantly higher salaries, as illustrated by ZipRecruiter's data showing an average annual salary of $133,381 for Walmart Corporate jobs in Pennsylvania, much higher than the overall average for Walmart employees in the state . Employee experience and tenure with the company can also lead to wage increases over time, although the extent of this progression is not fully detailed in the provided material.

Walmart has publicly stated its commitment to investing in higher wages and creating career pathways for its associates . The company reports that a significant number of U.S. associates are promoted to jobs with greater responsibility and higher pay each year, with over 130,000 such promotions in FY2024 . This suggests an effort to provide opportunities for wage growth within the company.

Comparison to Benchmarks
To contextualize Walmart's wages, it is essential to compare them to relevant benchmarks. As previously mentioned, the average wages reported by Walmart and other sources are substantially higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In areas with higher state or local minimum wages, such as New York City, which is set to increase its minimum wage to $16.50 per hour in 2025 , Walmart's entry-level wages in those regions might be closer to these local standards. For instance, the average hourly wage for a Walmart cashier in California, a state with a higher minimum wage, was reported to be $15.22 .

Further comparison to industry averages for retail and similar sectors would provide valuable context. While the provided snippets do not offer comprehensive industry-wide data, one source notes that Payscale's average hourly rate for Walmart ($13.19 in the cited information, likely outdated) was lower than Target's average of $14.94 . Walmart's own more recent figures suggest an improvement in their average wage compared to this earlier data.

The Reality of Government Benefits and Walmart Employees
The claim that American taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart through government benefits received by its employees warrants a careful examination of the available data.

Percentage of Walmart Employees Receiving Government Assistance
Several reports and studies indicate that a notable number of Walmart employees do receive government benefits such as Medicaid and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) in various states . For example, in Georgia, it was estimated that Walmart employed 3,959 workers on Medicaid, representing about 2.1 percent of the state's total non-elderly, non-disabled Medicaid recipients . Similarly, in Arkansas, approximately 3.1 percent of SNAP recipients were reported to work for Walmart . A GAO (Government Accountability Office) report mentioned that Walmart ranked among the top employers of SNAP and Medicaid beneficiaries in the states whose data were included, employing an estimated 14,500 workers receiving food stamps within their dataset .

In response to such findings, Walmart has stated that only a "small percentage" of their workforce relies on public assistance and has emphasized the company's investments in increased pay, expanded health benefits, and educational programs . This highlights a divergence in perspective regarding the extent and significance of government benefit receipt among Walmart employees.

Studies also suggest that certain job roles prevalent at Walmart, such as food preparation and serving workers and cashiers, have higher rates of SNAP receipt compared to the average U.S. worker . This indicates that industry-specific factors and the nature of the work itself, which may include lower wages and less consistent schedules, could contribute to the need for government assistance, rather than being solely attributable to the policies of a single employer like Walmart.
Comparison to the National Average for Full-Time Workers
To properly assess whether Walmart's situation is unique, it is crucial to compare the prevalence of government benefit receipt among its full-time employees to the national average for full-time workers. National data from 2022 indicates that around one in three Americans were enrolled in at least one government assistance program . However, this figure includes all individuals, not specifically full-time workers.

Data focusing on the working population provides more relevant context. A 2019 GAO analysis of Census Bureau data found that approximately 70 percent of adult wage earners enrolled in both Medicaid and SNAP worked full-time hours (35 or more hours per week) . This suggests that a significant portion of individuals receiving these benefits are indeed employed full-time across various sectors of the economy.

Further analysis by the Economic Policy Institute in 2015 showed that the rate of receipt of means-tested assistance decreases as annual hours worked increase . For those working 1,990 or more hours per year (generally considered full-time), the rate of any means-tested assistance was 21.9 percent, lower than the overall rate of 29.3 percent across all wage earners. Among specific programs, the rate of SNAP receipt for full-time workers (1,990+ hours) was 6.0 percent, compared to 10.4 percent for all wage earners.

More recent data from 2023 by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that among adults aged 19-64 covered by Medicaid who do not receive disability benefits from Social Security or Medicare, 92% were working full or part-time, with 44% working full-time . This reinforces the point that a large proportion of Medicaid recipients are part of the workforce.

Collectively, this data suggests that while some full-time Walmart employees do receive government benefits, this is not an isolated phenomenon and is reflective of a broader segment of the American workforce in lower-wage sectors who may qualify for assistance despite being employed full-time. Determining if Walmart's rate is disproportionately high would require more specific comparative studies controlling for factors like industry, job type, and wage levels.

Eligibility Criteria for Government Benefits
Understanding the criteria for qualifying for government benefits helps clarify why some full-time workers might still be eligible. Programs like Medicaid and SNAP have income thresholds and other requirements that individuals must meet to receive assistance . These thresholds are often based on the federal poverty line (FPL), which is updated annually . For example, SNAP eligibility generally requires a net monthly income at or below the poverty line and gross monthly income no more than 130 percent of the poverty line . These income limits vary based on household size.

Medicaid eligibility also has income limits, which vary by state and are often expressed as a percentage of the FPL . The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility in many states to cover adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

Given these income thresholds, it is conceivable that individuals working full-time in lower-paying jobs, even at an average of $17-$18 per hour, could still meet the eligibility criteria for these government assistance programs, particularly if they have dependents or live in areas with a high cost of living. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is another significant program that supplements the income of low-to-moderate-income working individuals and families .

Decoding Walmart's Healthcare Benefits
The assertion that full-time jobs should mandatorily provide healthcare benefits necessitates an examination of Walmart's current offerings in this area.

Availability and Cost of Healthcare Benefits
Walmart does provide medical, dental, and vision coverage options to its full-time employees . The company's benefits overviews indicate that these options are available to help associates get the coverage that works for them .

The starting cost of medical plans for Walmart associates has been reported as $34.50 per bi-weekly pay period in FY2024 . While not free, this represents a relatively low out-of-pocket expense for employees seeking coverage. Walmart offers a variety of health plan options, including the Premier Plan, Contribution Plan, Saver Plan, and HMO/PPO options, although not all plans are available in all locations . These different plans likely offer varying levels of coverage and cost-sharing arrangements to suit the diverse needs of their workforce.

Walmart's healthcare benefits include several notable features aimed at providing comprehensive and accessible care. Many medical plans offer virtual doctor visits for primary care, urgent care, and mental health needs through platforms like Doctor On Demand, often with low or no copays . The company also has a Centers of Excellence program that provides access to specialists and facilities for complex health conditions like surgery, cancer, and fertility care, often at no cost to the employee . Pharmacy coverage is included in all medical plans, with many generic prescriptions available for just $4 at Walmart and Sam's Club pharmacies . Some plans also offer a Health Savings Account (HSA) with employer contributions, allowing employees to save and pay for healthcare expenses with pre-tax dollars .

Comparison to Typical Employer-Sponsored Healthcare Plans
While the provided snippets detail Walmart's healthcare offerings, a comprehensive comparison to typical employer-sponsored plans would require additional data on average premiums, deductibles, and coverage levels across different industries and company sizes. However, the information available suggests that Walmart does provide a range of healthcare benefits to its full-time employees, including affordable starting options and access to valuable resources like virtual care and specialized treatment centers. The fact that Walmart's health coverage meets the "minimum value" standard under the Affordable Care Act further indicates a baseline level of comprehensive coverage.

Understanding "Poverty Wages" in the American Context
The term "poverty wages" is often used in discussions about the adequacy of compensation, but its definition can be subjective and heavily influenced by the cost of living in different regions.

Definition and Limitations
There is no single, universally accepted definition of "poverty wages." Generally, it refers to wages that are insufficient to meet basic needs such as housing, food, clothing, and healthcare, potentially leading individuals and families into poverty or near-poverty. The federal poverty line (FPL) serves as a key benchmark for defining poverty in the United States . In 2024, for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, the poverty guideline for a single-person household is $15,060 in annual income, and this threshold increases with household size .

While the FPL is widely used for statistical purposes and to determine eligibility for various federal programs, it has limitations in reflecting the true cost of living, particularly in high-cost areas. The FPL does not account for geographic variations in expenses such as housing, which can differ dramatically across the country. Therefore, a wage that keeps someone above the federal poverty line in a low-cost area might still be considered a poverty wage in a major metropolitan area with significantly higher living expenses.

Regional Variations in Cost of Living
Data on cost of living indices clearly demonstrates the substantial variations in expenses across different states . For example, states like Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California consistently rank as having some of the highest costs of living, while states such as Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Arkansas tend to have lower costs of living. According to the Cost of Living Index for 2024, Hawaii has an index of 186.9, indicating it is significantly more expensive than the national average of 100, while Mississippi has an index of 87.9, suggesting a cost of living that is lower than the national average .

These variations directly impact the purchasing power of wages. An hourly wage of $17.50 might provide a more comfortable standard of living in a state with a lower cost of living compared to a state like New York, which has a cost of living index of 123.3 . This highlights the importance of considering the geographic context when evaluating whether a particular wage constitutes a poverty wage.
Table 1: Cost of Living Index Comparison (Selected States, 2024)

State	Cost of Living Index (2024)	Comparison to National Average
Mississippi	87.9	Lower
Arkansas	88.7	Lower
Pennsylvania	95.1	Slightly Lower
Texas	92.7	Lower
California	144.8	Significantly Higher
New York	123.3	Higher

Export to Sheets
Source: World Population Review

This table illustrates the considerable differences in the cost of living across various states, emphasizing that the real value of a wage can vary significantly depending on location.

The Landscape of Full-Time Workers Earning Under $20 per Hour
The user's statement questions the assertion that low-wage work is primarily for students and teenagers just starting out, citing that 50% of full-time employees in America are paid less than $20 per hour. While the provided snippets do not directly confirm this specific 50% figure, they offer valuable insights into the demographics of lower-wage workers.

Demographic Data
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in May 2022 showed that 22.8 percent of total national employment (33.8 million jobs) paid between $15 and $19.99 per hour . An additional 20.4 percent (30.2 million jobs) paid less than $15 per hour. Together, nearly 60 percent of jobs paid less than $25 per hour, indicating a substantial portion of the workforce earns below the $20 per hour threshold.

Analysis of minimum wage workers in 2023 by the BLS reveals that while younger workers (under age 25) represent a smaller portion of the overall hourly paid workforce, they make up a disproportionately large share of those earning the federal minimum wage or less (44 percent) . However, the data also shows that a significant number of workers age 25 and older also earn at or below the minimum wage, though at a lower percentage compared to younger workers. This suggests that while younger individuals are more likely to be in the lowest wage brackets, low-wage work is not exclusively the domain of students and teenagers.

Further demographic breakdowns indicate that in 2022, less-educated workers were more likely to earn the minimum wage or less compared to those with higher levels of education . Certain occupations, particularly in food preparation and serving, have a much higher percentage of workers earning at or below the minimum wage compared to other occupational groups . The leisure and hospitality industry also has a high concentration of lower-wage workers .

These findings suggest that while age and education level are factors influencing wage levels, a significant portion of the adult workforce, across various industries, earns less than $20 per hour. This supports the user's point that low-wage work is not solely for those just starting their careers.

The Economic Burden of Childcare
The user's query also raises the crucial issue of affordable childcare as a necessary support for individuals working low-wage jobs.

Average Cost of Childcare in the US
Data from various sources confirms that childcare is a significant and often prohibitive expense for families in the United States . Care.com's 2025 Cost of Care Report indicates that the typical parent paid at least $9,600 on childcare costs in 2024 . Weekly costs vary depending on the type of care, with the average weekly cost for a nanny being $827, for daycare $343, and for a family care center $344 for one child in 2024 . Infant care tends to be more expensive than care for older children .

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) considers childcare affordable if it costs no more than 7% of a family's income. However, the Care.com report found that the average parent spends 22% of their household income on childcare, more than triple the HHS benchmark . The Department of Labor's analysis of childcare prices found that in 2024 dollars, monthly prices in 2018 ranged from about $5,940 per year for a school-age child in a home-based setting to $19,040 per year for infants in a center . More recent data from 2022 suggests that U.S. families spend between 8.9% and 16.0% of their median income on full-day care for just one child, with annual prices ranging from $6,552 to $15,600 .

These figures highlight the immense financial burden that childcare places on working families, particularly those with lower incomes.

Policy Implications
The user suggests that providing nearly free childcare would be necessary for people to work low-wage jobs. The high cost of childcare can indeed be a significant barrier to workforce participation, especially for single parents or families with multiple young children. If childcare were more affordable or free, it could potentially enable more individuals to enter or remain in the workforce, regardless of the wage level of the jobs available to them. This could have broader economic implications, potentially increasing the labor supply and reducing reliance on public assistance programs in the long run. However, the implementation and funding of such a policy would involve complex considerations and significant public investment.

Minimum Wage and the Cost of Living in High-Cost Metropolitan Areas (Focus on NYC)
The user references the high cost of living in New York City, stating that an income of $100,000 is "damn near homeless" and questioning whether a full-time starting income in such areas should be sufficient to avoid this situation.

Analysis of the Situation in New York City
While the assertion that a $100,000 income equates to near homelessness in NYC is likely an exaggeration for many individuals without significant debt or unusually high expenses, it does underscore the exceptionally high cost of living in the city, particularly for housing . Median home prices and rental costs in New York City are among the highest in the nation .

Comparing the minimum wage to the estimated living wage in NYC reveals a significant gap. As of January 1, 2025, the minimum wage in New York City is set to increase to $16.50 per hour . However, the MIT Living Wage Calculator estimates the living wage for a single adult with no children in New York County (Manhattan) to be $32.85 per hour . For a single adult with one child, the estimated living wage jumps to $55.38 per hour. Cornell ILR's estimate for a living wage in downstate New York (which includes NYC) was $28.54 per hour as of fall 2023 .

Table 2: Minimum Wage vs. Estimated Living Wage in New York City (Single Adult, No Children)

Metric	Amount (USD)
NYC Minimum Wage (Hourly, 2025)	$16.50
Estimated Living Wage (Hourly)	$32.85

Export to Sheets
Sources: New York State Government , MIT Living Wage Calculator

This table clearly shows that the current minimum wage in New York City is less than half of what is estimated to be a living wage for a single adult without children, and the disparity is even greater for those with dependents. While the increasing minimum wage aims to improve the financial well-being of low-wage workers, its impact is significantly challenged by the extremely high cost of living in the city.

Should Starting Income Prevent Near Homelessness?
The question of whether a full-time starting income in a high-cost area like NYC should prevent near homelessness is a complex ethical and economic issue. From an ethical standpoint, many would argue that individuals working full-time should earn enough to afford basic necessities, including safe and adequate housing, without being on the brink of homelessness. Economically, the failure of wages to meet the cost of living can lead to increased reliance on social services, higher rates of poverty, and potential negative impacts on the overall economy.

However, determining an appropriate starting income involves considerations of employer capacity, the value of entry-level work, and the role of government and social safety nets in providing support. The significant gap between the minimum wage and the living wage in NYC suggests that even with full-time work at the minimum wage, individuals may struggle to afford basic needs without additional support. This reinforces the user's underlying concern about the adequacy of wages in high-cost areas.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the analysis of wage levels, benefits, and government assistance in the American workforce, with a specific focus on Walmart, reveals a complex picture that both confirms and challenges the user's initial statement. While the average wages at Walmart are above the federal minimum wage, and the company does offer healthcare benefits to its full-time employees, it is also evident that a segment of their workforce, like many in other low-wage sectors, may still qualify for and receive government assistance. This reflects broader systemic issues related to the cost of living, particularly in high-cost areas, and the income thresholds for public assistance programs.

The term "poverty wages" is context-dependent and significantly influenced by regional variations in the cost of living. While Walmart's average wages might be sufficient in some lower-cost areas, they may still fall short of providing a living wage in expensive metropolitan areas like New York City, where the minimum wage is considerably lower than the estimated cost of basic needs. The demographic data on lower-wage workers supports the idea that this is not solely an issue affecting students or those just entering the workforce, but rather a reality for a substantial portion of the adult population.

The high cost of childcare remains a significant challenge for working families across the income spectrum, and the availability of affordable childcare could indeed have a positive impact on workforce participation and economic stability. Finally, the situation in New York City highlights the extreme challenges faced by low-wage workers in areas with exceptionally high costs of living, where even incomes significantly above the poverty line can feel inadequate.

Addressing the complexities of low-wage work and ensuring a basic standard of living for all full-time employees likely requires multifaceted solutions involving not only employer compensation and benefits policies but also government interventions such as adjustments to minimum wage laws, expansion of affordable healthcare and childcare options, and a robust social safety net that adequately accounts for the diverse economic realities across the United States.

 

[tsigwing]

Sad reality, some of these new PHEV's from China are close to being worth the price even with a 100% tariff.

Based on? Have you seen one in person? Driven it?

 

[turbopilot]

Based on? Have you seen one in person? Driven it?

 

[tsigwing]

A youtube video? Ok.

 

[Suns_PSD]

We (myself and my workmates) get employee pricing on new Fords from a local dealer and my work mate just grabbed a new one from our guy about an hour ago (he literally gets 1-2/ year).

Anyways, he was told April 2nd orders and beyond are when the tariffs hit the domestic truck manufacturers and that to expect everything on the lot to get a 'Covid like premium of around $7-10K'. Apparently, the actual tariffs are considerably more than that, so they are upping the price on existing inventory to make more money and to try and avoid having to reorder at the even higher tariff prices.

IMO, this along with all of the other 1000s of increases in costs to consumers, is already resulting in reduced consumer spending along with the other things that come along with that.

 

[turbopilot]

A youtube video? Ok.

Right now that is all we can experience. Not legal to import any of these into the US and register them. I understand the reasons for the stiff tariff, but it is short sighted because there is no big incentive to compete in the US. 48% of auto sales in China are EV's, HEV's, PHEV's or extended range HEV's. All this with no EV or environmental mandate. They are clearly way ahead and leaving us in the dust. This is not about the environment, it is all about the most cost effective way to move your body around.

Sponsored