When you’re paid minimum wage in the US, and you’re not permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to hold down multiple jobs; you probably also don’t get things like healthcare from any of them.

Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your jobs.

if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.

If you have multiple jobs and must take every hour they ask of you, you clearly do not have time to find another job; you are very likely working more than a full-time job without adequate protections.

Look, here’s how it goes:

1) you have no job

2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money

3) you take the second job that comes your way so that you can survive

4) you have no time to actually do anything towards getting a better job

Understand?

This is why jobs that pay less than what is needed to survive are bad for individuals and bad for society; people have to take them. Nobody is going to help you survive otherwise.

if you have multiple jobs, you already have another job, so it was clearly possible.

The difference here is that the second job you have is likely going to be just as terrible as your first, where the improvement comes not from having a better job but simply having access to more hours and therefore more hourly pay.

Searching for a job that is _mechanically better_ (think office job versus min-wage retail) is significantly more challenging than finding a min-wage job. For example, most salaried or otherwise higher paying jobs require multiple rounds of interviews while many min-wage jobs will hire you on the spot to fill a staff position.

No. It means it’s possible to find a second job when you only have one. It doesn’t mean that once you’ve found a second job you still have time to search for an improved job.

You’re intentionally not getting it. I don’t know how to make this clearer than what I wrote, especially as you haven’t actually responded to what i wrote.

I'd would say that you are intentionally not getting it. I wasn't responding to you, I was clarifying for your benefit. As someone who's worked minimum wage jobs, I know exactly how it is, so I really don't need to be told. I'm also my union rep at work, so this isn't coming from a anti-union stance in the slightest, I absolutely see the value.

So when you were working multiple minimum wage jobs because one didn’t cover your living costs, did you have time to find something better? Could you quit them to find something better? My friends sure don’t and can’t.

Many times, if you're having to take on another job, you don't have the luxury of "time" to find the best one, e.g. pays well, has benefits, etc. You take the first or second job that comes to you and work for as much time as possible at that one as well. Speaking from experience, people don't take on multiple jobs just to work them for an hour or two a day.

no, working an additional job does not give you more hours in a day. rather it consumes time. what do you do at work?

I'm responding to what's written. If you have a job at walmart, they can't both have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at walmart and have another job.

...but they can have zero time to find another job because of being beholden to their job at Walmart, and to the other job?

You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.

if they have the other job already, then they clearly had time. I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying it doesn't make sense that you can be beholden to a job because of too many hours, and have reduced hours. It's one or the other.

This is covered by search theory in economics. (economists do not use "supply and demand" for jobs, rather they consider things like search time and monopsony power.)

39 hours + "you come running when we call or you lose it."

It's just shy of full-time (to withhold benefits), but not exactly the same thing as a side gig. And you're bent over a barrel.

Both situations applied to different people. I'd find it weirdly paradoxical for one person to find themselves in both situations simultaneously.

Easily possible. Show up for one hour, ever other hour, to perform task X. I pay you for four hours and you need to be on call for eight daily.

So... quit?

How is that contradictory?

if they have reduced hours, then they have time to find another job.

What about irregular scheduling? Surely that can have a big impact on ability to find/keep other work I imagine.