Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Detroit Free Press)   Study finds you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps on minimum wage because bootstraps are all you can afford to eat   ( freep.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11344 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2011 at 1:43 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



545 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2011-06-05 06:21:49 PM  
 
2011-06-05 06:28:56 PM  
don't worry though - if you pray HARD ENOUGH then Supply Side Jesus will help you out!
 
2011-06-05 06:31:48 PM  
This isn't exactly a new study. This is more of a reevaluation of an older study from the nineties. I recall reading a very sad book written by a journalist/author who went undercover and worked minimum wage jobs at Walmart, a maid service, and a cafe. She tried for three months to live on exactly what her coworkers made and found, quite overwhelmingly, that she was barely making ends meet, let alone the single moms out there. And that's if you're lucky enough to be employed.

/Still believes in "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."
 
2011-06-05 06:33:28 PM  

mrichmond3737: I recall reading a very sad book written by a journalist/author who went undercover and worked minimum wage jobs at Walmart, a maid service, and a cafe.


Nickel and Dimed by any chance?
 
2011-06-05 06:37:29 PM  
what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.
 
2011-06-05 06:37:36 PM  
Amazing that people are still trying to float the "live on minimum wage" BS as if anyone was ever meant to.

Your FAIL is strong, libtards...
 
2011-06-05 06:38:40 PM  

mrichmond3737: This isn't exactly a new study. This is more of a reevaluation of an older study from the nineties. I recall reading a very sad book written by a journalist/author who went undercover and worked minimum wage jobs at Walmart, a maid service, and a cafe. She tried for three months to live on exactly what her coworkers made and found, quite overwhelmingly, that she was barely making ends meet, let alone the single moms out there. And that's if you're lucky enough to be employed.

/Still believes in "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."


And then there was the guy who, after a year, had a home, car and savings....
 
2011-06-05 06:41:28 PM  

LordZorch: Amazing that people are still trying to float the "live on minimum wage" BS as if anyone was ever meant to.

Your FAIL is strong, libtards...


1/10. use of 'libtards' is too obvious an attempt to troll the thread.

you should try using the prosperity gospel. preach a warped/twisted interpretation of the 'sermon on the mount' and you'll get TONS of bites that way.
 
2011-06-05 06:42:32 PM  

LordZorch: mrichmond3737: This isn't exactly a new study. This is more of a reevaluation of an older study from the nineties. I recall reading a very sad book written by a journalist/author who went undercover and worked minimum wage jobs at Walmart, a maid service, and a cafe. She tried for three months to live on exactly what her coworkers made and found, quite overwhelmingly, that she was barely making ends meet, let alone the single moms out there. And that's if you're lucky enough to be employed.

/Still believes in "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."

And then there was the guy who, after a year, had a home, car and savings....


so what made this alleged 'other guy' different from everyone else?
 
2011-06-05 06:47:06 PM  

LordZorch: Amazing that people are still trying to float the "live on minimum wage" BS as if anyone was ever meant to.

Your FAIL is strong, libtards...


A woman working two jobs should be able to feed her family and afford new shoes.
 
2011-06-05 06:53:02 PM  

Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.


It has to do with the spread of misinformation. It appears to me that the majority of Americans get their information not from news sources, but from water-cooler talk. We have a few people in my office that, during the election of '08, tried their hardest to convince everyone else that Obama pledged to raise everyone's taxes. Even the CEO of my company makes slightly less than 220,000/yr before taxes, his AGI is probably in the 190-195 range, and he repeatedly states that his fellow executives that do not toe the party line are "thinking in a blue-collar mindset."
 
2011-06-05 06:54:25 PM  
Don't feed the troll, kids.


Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican.

A lot of people subconsciously believe if they act like they're running with the big dogs, they'll somehow turn into big dogs, too. It's sympathetic magic, like supply-side economics.

Remember Joe the Plumber? A living archetype of Fooling Yourself right-wingers. Joe would have paid higher taxes under McCain, but he planned to vote for McCain because he planned to be a millionaire. He had no actual plan or means to become a millionaire. He just figured if he hung around the club long enough and sucked up hard enough, surely they'd give him an honorary membership.

And the rich love that, they perpetuate that, they tell you that if you just keep believing, well, gosh, you too can become rich. (Only in America!)

Never mind that the vast majority of people who keep their heads down, work hard, and keep the faith . . . have their constant-dollar income go down as the years go by. Inflation keeps most of them from ever realizing it, anyway.
 
2011-06-05 06:55:27 PM  
WhyteRaven74 Nickel and Dimed by any chance?


That sounds about right.


LordZorch And then there was the guy who, after a year, had a home, car and savings....


I suppose it would depend largely on where you live and what kind of support system you have, but I've lived a great many places across this country and it's never been possible where I've lived.
 
2011-06-05 06:59:25 PM  

LordZorch: Amazing that people are still trying to float the "live on minimum wage" BS


How the hell are supposed to find a better job or get more education when you can't even pay your rent and buy food working six days hard labor a week.

Yes, you're not supposed to live on minimum wage. Reality check is that sometimes YOU MUST.
 
2011-06-05 07:11:18 PM  
[ric_romero.jpg]
 
2011-06-05 07:11:22 PM  

RandomAxe: Don't feed the troll, kids.


Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican.

A lot of people subconsciously believe if they act like they're running with the big dogs, they'll somehow turn into big dogs, too. It's sympathetic magic, like supply-side economics.

Remember Joe the Plumber? A living archetype of Fooling Yourself right-wingers. Joe would have paid higher taxes under McCain, but he planned to vote for McCain because he planned to be a millionaire. He had no actual plan or means to become a millionaire. He just figured if he hung around the club long enough and sucked up hard enough, surely they'd give him an honorary membership.

And the rich love that, they perpetuate that, they tell you that if you just keep believing, well, gosh, you too can become rich. (Only in America!)

Never mind that the vast majority of people who keep their heads down, work hard, and keep the faith . . . have their constant-dollar income go down as the years go by. Inflation keeps most of them from ever realizing it, anyway.


Have faith and a god will bless you with riches!!!
 
2011-06-05 07:14:58 PM  

mrichmond3737: That sounds about right.


Good read that sadly didn't get as much coverage as it should have and really still should be brought up.
 
2011-06-05 07:24:08 PM  

doglover: Yes, you're not supposed to live on minimum wage. Reality check is that sometimes YOU MUST.


That's because God hates minimum-wagers!
 
2011-06-05 07:33:28 PM  
In PA, if you make federal minimum wage you may be eligible for public assistance, depending upon the number of family members you support. I'm sure that's true in many states.

So, what happens is the burden of providing for the working poor is shifted from the employer to the state. What's wrong with this picture?
 
2011-06-05 07:37:34 PM  
We should expand EITC, or (my preference) go with a wage subsidy. That would help the poor and encourage work.

/the only down side is paying for it.
//Pigovian and Georgist taxes would do it, but the whining would be monumental.
 
2011-06-05 07:38:04 PM  

FredaDeStilleto: So, what happens is the burden of providing for the working poor is shifted from the employer to the state. What's wrong with this picture?


If you're Walmart absolutely nothing.
 
2011-06-05 07:40:37 PM  
Ftfa: Cameo Thomas of Jackson works two jobs as a nursing home aide to support her 4-year-old twin sons.

So, "you" can't live off minimum wage, or "three people" can't live off minimum wage?
 
2011-06-05 07:49:30 PM  
A mother with two young children -- like Thomas -- needs $24.49 an hour to house, clothe and feed her children. That's three times the minimum wage.

That's almost $50k/year - I realize working with younger than school age kids pretty much means day care but $50k/year is now the threshold for "barely making it"????

I thought $50k per year was "outrageous teacher salary" range and $250k/year was "barely making it"..... damn this new math, the numbers just don't make sense any more.
 
2011-06-05 07:50:50 PM  
Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.
 
2011-06-05 07:53:21 PM  

RandomAxe: Remember Joe the Plumber? A living archetype of Fooling Yourself right-wingers. Joe would have paid higher taxes under McCain, but he planned to vote for McCain because he planned to be a millionaire. He had no actual plan or means to become a millionaire.


Unfortunately, his plan to say dumb sh*t that the right wing likes to hear worked pretty well for him.
 
2011-06-05 07:54:04 PM  

slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.


And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?
 
2011-06-05 07:54:43 PM  

Fizpez: That's almost $50k/year - I realize working with younger than school age kids pretty much means day care but $50k/year is now the threshold for "barely making it"????


I think the number is a general figure, and could vary place to place depending on various costs and how available stuff is.
 
2011-06-05 08:01:44 PM  
In most of the civilized world, parents and children have free health care, free nursery schools and preschools, and parents have paid maternity/paternity leave for 1 year. College tuition is also free and in some countries (Germany), students receive a stipend.

But yeah, go USA.
 
2011-06-05 08:02:58 PM  

Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?


Pray
 
2011-06-05 08:03:19 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Fizpez: That's almost $50k/year - I realize working with younger than school age kids pretty much means day care but $50k/year is now the threshold for "barely making it"????

I think the number is a general figure, and could vary place to place depending on various costs and how available stuff is.


Day care's a biatch. Child care for kids costs more than state university in almost every state. But you don't have 529s to pay for those five-six years..

If this chick had pre-K offered, it would be a very different story. All the folks who want more "murrican kids" would be well served to advocate funding of child care.
 
2011-06-05 08:03:56 PM  

ginandbacon: In most of the civilized world, parents and children have free health care, free nursery schools and preschools, and parents have paid maternity/paternity leave for 1 year. College tuition is also free and in some countries (Germany), students receive a stipend.

But yeah, go USA.


Sounds like soshalizm.
 
2011-06-05 08:04:23 PM  

ginandbacon: In most of the civilized world, parents and children have free health care, free nursery schools and preschools, and parents have paid maternity/paternity leave for 1 year.


Beat me by like 90 seconds, whydontcha?
 
2011-06-05 08:06:42 PM  
I like how the headline is basically "You can't bootstrap yourself up on minimum wage because you can't afford bootstraps" and there are several people in the thread saying "you shouldn't be living on minimum wage, just bootstrap yourself into a better wage"

Yes, I'm using bootstrap as a verb.
 
2011-06-05 08:06:42 PM  

Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?


I know right. There should totally be some program with $s instead of Ss in it's acronym, that helps people in that kind of situation get themselves educated and back on their feet. Oh wait....

ftfa: For Thomas, though, the future is looking brighter. She completed three years of classes and financial counseling in the Michigan $AVE$ program for low-income families and learned how to budget.
....
And she's continuing to work toward a college degree in criminal justice so she can some day work as a probation officer.
 
2011-06-05 08:08:42 PM  

Babwa Wawa: ginandbacon: In most of the civilized world, parents and children have free health care, free nursery schools and preschools, and parents have paid maternity/paternity leave for 1 year.

Beat me by like 90 seconds, whydontcha?


I was educated in Europe. *wink*
 
2011-06-05 08:11:25 PM  

Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?


Pay attention in high school, don't gangbang and keep your legs closed. Fill out the FAFSA in January and use your Pell grant and free state aid to go to your local community college. Get a work-study job and work like a dog during summer to avoid taking out loans. Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.
 
2011-06-05 08:16:16 PM  
Is this one of those time management games? Because, I totally suck at those.
 
2011-06-05 08:17:40 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.


You're proposing a uniquely American solution to a uniquely American problem. In other words, you're not helping.
 
2011-06-05 08:20:07 PM  
"But we're all suffering through this difficult economic downturn!"

shirefolk.comView Full Size
 
2011-06-05 08:24:32 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?

Pay attention in high school, don't gangbang and keep your legs closed. Fill out the FAFSA in January and use your Pell grant and free state aid to go to your local community college. Get a work-study job and work like a dog during summer to avoid taking out loans. Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.


That's pretty much the way I'm getting my kid through school. Two years in a community college for basics, with all tranferable to a private university. Pell grants, however, are almost dead in the water. She has received academic scholarships that cover several thousand dollars a year. You have to apply for everything - the pennies turn into dollars.
 
2011-06-05 08:43:13 PM  
Arthur Jumbles: Pay attention in high school, don't gangbang and keep your legs closed. Fill out the FAFSA in January and use your Pell grant and free state aid to go to your local community college. Get a work-study job and work like a dog during summer to avoid taking out loans. Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.

And have good luck. Because lots of people who follow that plan absolutely as hard and as diligently as they can still fail to ever really get anywhere.

People who succeed love to believe that it's because they earned it, period, or because they're just plain better. This is the case about 25% of the time. The rest are lucky and either don't realize it or don't want to believe it. They understandably don't want to share what they have, so they want to believe that people who have less have something wrong with them and just deserve to have less.

Stay in school, work hard, save your pennies. That's the best plan there is, if you aren't lucky in the first place. But it's no guarantee of anything. It's not even close, and it hasn't been since around 1970.

Most of the hardest-working people I know are either scraping to make ends meet or working part-time for crap money while looking for something better. And looking. And looking.
 
2011-06-05 08:46:20 PM  

Weaver95: And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?


Exactly.
 
2011-06-05 08:54:31 PM  

mrichmond3737: WhyteRaven74 Nickel and Dimed by any chance?


That sounds about right.


LordZorch And then there was the guy who, after a year, had a home, car and savings....


I suppose it would depend largely on where you live and what kind of support system you have, but I've lived a great many places across this country and it's never been possible where I've lived.


It's called "showing initiative". I think he even wrote a book about it...
 
2011-06-05 08:55:52 PM  

Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?


Student loans?

(Of course, at the rate things are going, paying for college with student loans will soon end up costing more than the extra salary you get from a college degree... For all but the highest-paying careers.)

Well, uhh, less competition from me!
 
2011-06-05 08:56:44 PM  

elchip: Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?

Student loans?

(Of course, at the rate things are going, paying for college with student loans will soon end up costing more than the extra salary you get from a college degree... For all but the highest-paying careers.)

Well, uhh, less competition from me!


Ahem, less competition FOR me.
 
2011-06-05 08:57:36 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Weaver95: And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?

Exactly.


Getting an education is easy. Paying for it is another issue altogether. Sallie Mae will give a loan to anyone. She will also pursue you till your death to get it back, but throw her a few hundred $$$'s every quarter and she'll stay off your back.
My point is that anyone can get an education. Not everyone will succeed.
 
2011-06-05 08:59:07 PM  

RandomAxe: Arthur Jumbles: Pay attention in high school, don't gangbang and keep your legs closed. Fill out the FAFSA in January and use your Pell grant and free state aid to go to your local community college. Get a work-study job and work like a dog during summer to avoid taking out loans. Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.

And have good luck. Because lots of people who follow that plan absolutely as hard and as diligently as they can still fail to ever really get anywhere.

People who succeed love to believe that it's because they earned it, period, or because they're just plain better. This is the case about 25% of the time. The rest are lucky and either don't realize it or don't want to believe it. They understandably don't want to share what they have, so they want to believe that people who have less have something wrong with them and just deserve to have less.

Stay in school, work hard, save your pennies. That's the best plan there is, if you aren't lucky in the first place. But it's no guarantee of anything. It's not even close, and it hasn't been since around 1970.

Most of the hardest-working people I know are either scraping to make ends meet or working part-time for crap money while looking for something better. And looking. And looking.


Worked for me and I'll admit I don't consider myself lucky, although people always say I am. If I am different in any way I guess I have a higher internal locus of control and tend to be more future oriented than others. I also strongly believe in the mantra of "Work smarter, not harder".
 
2011-06-05 09:08:48 PM  

Ed Finnerty: "But we're all suffering through this difficult economic downturn!"


How many families would one of those neck wattles feed?
 
2011-06-05 09:15:49 PM  
Don't get me wrong -- if it worked for you, there isn't somehow something automatically wrong with that. But if you look up real wages (income measured in constant dollars) since the early 70s, you'll see that on average each new crop of workers has made less money than the last crop.

Household income has fared slightly better . . . but of course the average number of people per household who have to get a job outside the home has gone way up. In the 70s, in most married couples I knew, only one person was gainfully employed. Now, at the moment I can't think of a married couple I know where both people aren't holding down at least a part-time job.

Wait -- my parents are still married, and my mother volunteers but doesn't have a paid job. So one couple I know.

Personally, I'm single, I make about twice the poverty line, in a high-tax low-income area. My job pays squat, but tons of people around here can't find a full-time job, and my job is basically a community service position. I can get by, but I couldn't support someone else. The sad thing is that fifteen years ago (at a different job) I made the same wage I make now. I'll never retire, but I've never been on the dole, either.
 
2011-06-05 09:18:48 PM  

serial_crusher: I know right. There should totally be some program with $s instead of Ss in it's acronym, that helps people in that kind of situation get themselves educated and back on their feet. Oh wait....


Arthur Jumbles: Pay attention in high school, don't gangbang and keep your legs closed. Fill out the FAFSA in January and use your Pell grant and free state aid to go to your local community college. Get a work-study job and work like a dog during summer to avoid taking out loans. Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.


You both forgot the most important factor: never, ever have anything go wrong. You cannot get sick, nor can your children or loved ones. Your car cannot break down. You cannot get pregnant, or get someone else pregnant. The price of basic commodities like foodstuffs, clothing, and gasoline cannot increase, or cannot outstrip the rate of inflation if you work for a semi-reputable employer. Your bills cannot increase. In short, you'd better live in Perfect Land, because something will go wrong, and you will go from living on the edge of the knife to being fish bait.
 
2011-06-05 09:43:02 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I know right. There should totally be some program with $s instead of Ss in it's acronym, that helps people in that kind of situation get themselves educated and back on their feet. Oh wait....

Arthur Jumbles: Pay attention in high school, don't gangbang and keep your legs closed. Fill out the FAFSA in January and use your Pell grant and free state aid to go to your local community college. Get a work-study job and work like a dog during summer to avoid taking out loans. Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.

You both forgot the most important factor: never, ever have anything go wrong. You cannot get sick, nor can your children or loved ones. Your car cannot break down. You cannot get pregnant, or get someone else pregnant. The price of basic commodities like foodstuffs, clothing, and gasoline cannot increase, or cannot outstrip the rate of inflation if you work for a semi-reputable employer. Your bills cannot increase. In short, you'd better live in Perfect Land, because something will go wrong, and you will go from living on the edge of the knife to being fish bait.


What I'm saying is that there should be help available for people in extraordinary circumstances who want to make life better (and already is to an extent). Just raising the minimum wage for all the high school kids/lazy people who don't need it/won't use it, isn't the solution
 
2011-06-05 10:03:52 PM  
Meh. At least the guy trying to scrape by isn't a loser like the dude on unemployment is.
 
2011-06-05 10:08:53 PM  

serial_crusher: What I'm saying is that there should be help available for people in extraordinary circumstances who want to make life better (and already is to an extent).


So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.
 
2011-06-05 11:06:25 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: What I'm saying is that there should be help available for people in extraordinary circumstances who want to make life better (and already is to an extent).

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.


Well, just like it's unfair to expect a business to have to pay a high school student enough to support a family of 10, it could be similarly unfair to force the business to give an employee a raise just because they're having yet another baby.

I do see the need for a minimum wage in general though. Somebody who doesn't have any extraordinary circumstances should be able to make a "living wage" off any job, provided a reasonable definition of "living wage". i.e. you're only supporting yourself, you split your rent/bills among multiple roommates who all work, that sort of thing. For everybody else, limited welfare or life on the streets if you're squandering it.
 
2011-06-05 11:14:51 PM  

serial_crusher: just like it's unfair to expect a business to have to pay a high school student enough to support a family of 10


False dichotomy. Name the group lobbying for an entry level position to pay a minor enough to support 10 people. Or the societal demand. Or the mere existence of the above scenario.
 
2011-06-05 11:20:21 PM  
Yawn, it's called an exaggeration. Every one of these threads you see somebody who's trying to support more than one person on one minimum wage job (like the lady here...2 jobs feeding 3 people).
 
2011-06-05 11:22:41 PM  

serial_crusher: Yawn, it's called an exaggeration. Every one of these threads you see somebody who's trying to support more than one person on one minimum wage job (like the lady here...2 jobs feeding 3 people).


see those goalposts? the ones waaaaaaay over there? yeah...we all saw you move them just now.
 
2011-06-05 11:24:03 PM  

serial_crusher: 2 jobs feeding 3 people


So you draw the line at one person and one half of one dependent?
 
2011-06-05 11:26:05 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: 2 jobs feeding 3 people

So you draw the line at one person and one half of one dependent?


No, I draw the line at 1 person. I've never heard the "living wage" lobby specify an actual limit on the number of people a minimum wage job should support, so I figured 10 was as good as any.
 
2011-06-05 11:27:40 PM  

serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: 2 jobs feeding 3 people

So you draw the line at one person and one half of one dependent?

No, I draw the line at 1 person. I've never heard the "living wage" lobby specify an actual limit on the number of people a minimum wage job should support, so I figured 10 was as good as any.


so one person shouldn't contribute to the welfare of anyone else ever under any circumstances?
 
2011-06-05 11:29:56 PM  

serial_crusher: No, I draw the line at 1 person.


At what standard of living?
 
2011-06-05 11:30:59 PM  

Weaver95: serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: 2 jobs feeding 3 people

So you draw the line at one person and one half of one dependent?

No, I draw the line at 1 person. I've never heard the "living wage" lobby specify an actual limit on the number of people a minimum wage job should support, so I figured 10 was as good as any.

so one person shouldn't contribute to the welfare of anyone else ever under any circumstances?


I can't even begin to imagine what amount of crazy caused you to interpret what I said that way, so I'll just assume you meant to say something that made sense and it came out wrong. Can you please restate the question?
 
2011-06-05 11:32:11 PM  

serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: What I'm saying is that there should be help available for people in extraordinary circumstances who want to make life better (and already is to an extent).

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.

Well, just like it's unfair to expect a business to have to pay a high school student enough to support a family of 10, it could be similarly unfair to force the business to give an employee a raise just because they're having yet another baby.

I do see the need for a minimum wage in general though. Somebody who doesn't have any extraordinary circumstances should be able to make a "living wage" off any job, provided a reasonable definition of "living wage". i.e. you're only supporting yourself, you split your rent/bills among multiple roommates who all work, that sort of thing. For everybody else, limited welfare or life on the streets if you're squandering it.


Of course you don't see a need for a minimum wage, you're a corporate cock-sucking conservative. You cut benefits, make people work longer and for less. Then you cut welfare and social spending so people work even harder while you blame them for your greed. Then you complain about "wealth redistribution" and "socialism" while the richest 1% acquire even more wealth, and hoard it, while worshiping at the altar of the "free" market.

jungcurrents.comView Full Size
 
2011-06-05 11:32:50 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.


Privatize profits, socialize costs - it's the "conservative" way!
 
2011-06-05 11:33:44 PM  

Weaver95: so one person shouldn't contribute to the welfare of anyone else ever under any circumstances?


Your kids should go get their own damn jobs down at the mills!!!!111!!
 
2011-06-05 11:33:50 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: No, I draw the line at 1 person.

At what standard of living?


Yes, that's the other problem they have. Even when they want an example of a single person who "can't make ends meet", he's living by himself in a nice apartment, has cable tv, drives an SUV to work instead of taking the bus or riding a bike.

Minimum wage == minimum lifestyle.
 
2011-06-05 11:36:58 PM  

serial_crusher: Weaver95: serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: 2 jobs feeding 3 people

So you draw the line at one person and one half of one dependent?

No, I draw the line at 1 person. I've never heard the "living wage" lobby specify an actual limit on the number of people a minimum wage job should support, so I figured 10 was as good as any.

so one person shouldn't contribute to the welfare of anyone else ever under any circumstances?

I can't even begin to imagine what amount of crazy caused you to interpret what I said that way, so I'll just assume you meant to say something that made sense and it came out wrong. Can you please restate the question?


ok, I can try this again. maybe something more down at your level of intelligence.

people BAD! fire GOOD! hit people with ROCK! rock GOOD!

[thump chest] [roar loudly] [primal scream]

it loses something in translation, but I hope I was able to dumb that down enough for you.
 
2011-06-05 11:37:00 PM  
serial_crusher: I did not ask you for platitudes, sir.

At what standard of living?
 
2011-06-05 11:42:34 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I did not ask you for platitudes, sir.

At what standard of living?


I already said in my earlier post, multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills. On top of that, I'd say enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance. Not necessarily anything by way of saving money for college, etc. Bootstrappiness step 1 is to earn yourself a promotion above minimum wage. I don't know, what other specifics are you concerned with?
 
2011-06-05 11:46:15 PM  

serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I did not ask you for platitudes, sir.

At what standard of living?

I already said in my earlier post, multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills. On top of that, I'd say enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance. Not necessarily anything by way of saving money for college, etc. Bootstrappiness step 1 is to earn yourself a promotion above minimum wage. I don't know, what other specifics are you concerned with?


Implying you've given any.
 
2011-06-05 11:47:48 PM  

serial_crusher: I do see the need for a minimum wage in general though. Somebody who doesn't have any extraordinary circumstances should be able to make a "living wage" off any job, provided a reasonable definition of "living wage".


Fark It: Of course you don't see a need for a minimum wage


Well, I guess all those other things you said about me are true too.
 
2011-06-05 11:49:00 PM  

Fark It: serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I did not ask you for platitudes, sir.

At what standard of living?

I already said in my earlier post, multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills. On top of that, I'd say enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance. Not necessarily anything by way of saving money for college, etc. Bootstrappiness step 1 is to earn yourself a promotion above minimum wage. I don't know, what other specifics are you concerned with?

Implying you've given any.


Let's try leading by example then. How many people do you think minimum wage should support, and at what standard of living?
 
2011-06-05 11:50:58 PM  

serial_crusher: multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills.


And when this luxury is unavailable and you must solo it? Your solution is to starve?

serial_crusher: enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance.


Does this include health care? What measure of sustenance? Is borderline starvation enough, or can you afford meat? And if you get proper nutrition and health care, how would forgoing this not pay for the additional half-dependent discussed above?

serial_crusher: Not necessarily anything by way of saving money for college, etc.


Zero ability to save money. So every unscheduled expenditure would lead to insolvency? That's the scenario I describe above, where you do just fine at or near minimum wage, until the unexpected cuts your throat. Congratulations, you want the status quo. And it's working just fine, ain't it?
 
2011-06-05 11:51:08 PM  

serial_crusher: Fark It: serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I did not ask you for platitudes, sir.

At what standard of living?

I already said in my earlier post, multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills. On top of that, I'd say enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance. Not necessarily anything by way of saving money for college, etc. Bootstrappiness step 1 is to earn yourself a promotion above minimum wage. I don't know, what other specifics are you concerned with?

Implying you've given any.

Let's try leading by example then. How many people do you think minimum wage should support, and at what standard of living?


Minimum wage should support at least two people, their health care, transportation to and from work, insurance, food, clothing, shelter, and some post-secondary education at the junior college level.
 
2011-06-05 11:57:10 PM  

Fark It: serial_crusher: Fark It: serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I did not ask you for platitudes, sir.

At what standard of living?

I already said in my earlier post, multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills. On top of that, I'd say enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance. Not necessarily anything by way of saving money for college, etc. Bootstrappiness step 1 is to earn yourself a promotion above minimum wage. I don't know, what other specifics are you concerned with?

Implying you've given any.

Let's try leading by example then. How many people do you think minimum wage should support, and at what standard of living?

Minimum wage should support at least two people, their health care, transportation to and from work, insurance, food, clothing, shelter, and some post-secondary education at the junior college level.


ok,that's less specific than what i said. no limitations on kinds of food, method of transportation.
When you say "at least" two people, do you mean people with different number of dependents should make different amounts of money? I like that better than the "give everybody moar" we usually hear.
 
2011-06-06 12:00:10 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance.

Does this include health care? What measure of sustenance? Is borderline starvation enough, or can you afford meat? And if you get proper nutrition and health care, how would forgoing this not pay for the additional half-dependent discussed above?


Going to blow your mind here, but I think we should have free public healthcare. You don't have to buy crime or fire insurance to get help from the police or fire departments when you need it.
 
2011-06-06 12:02:34 AM  

serial_crusher: I think we should have free public healthcare.


I'm in total agreement. However, that's not the environment that exists today. So what regulations should be placed upon businesses in the absence of universal health care? What does a business owe the least of its workers?
 
2011-06-06 12:04:37 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills.

And when this luxury is unavailable and you must solo it? Your solution is to starve?


serial_crusher: Somebody who doesn't have any extraordinary circumstances should be able to make a "living wage" off any job, provided a reasonable definition of "living wage". i.e. you're only supporting yourself, you split your rent/bills among multiple roommates who all work, that sort of thing. For everybody else, limited welfare or life on the streets if you're squandering it.

lrgiles.comView Full Size
 
2011-06-06 12:16:24 AM  
No one has extraordinary circumstances UNTIL they have extraordinary circumstances.

That's the whole point of extraordinary circumstances.

If you're just making it, squeaking by with absolutely no cushion, you're not really making it.
 
2011-06-06 12:18:05 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I think we should have free public healthcare.

I'm in total agreement. However, that's not the environment that exists today. So what regulations should be placed upon businesses in the absence of universal health care? What does a business owe the least of its workers?


Good point, but it's not the business's fault that the government is doing things wrong.
 
2011-06-06 12:18:35 AM  

serial_crusher: Somebody who doesn't have any extraordinary circumstances


Extra-ordinary implies that these circumstances are atypical. They are not. So what of those who endure them? And again, should you be punished for your inability to secure others who invest in your continued well-being (roommates who cover part of rent and bills)?

serial_crusher: For everybody else, limited welfare


Again, what standard of living?
 
2011-06-06 12:20:11 AM  

serial_crusher: it's not the business's fault that the government is doing things wrong.


So a business has zero moral responsibility to a community beyond that imposed by the government?
 
2011-06-06 12:29:22 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: it's not the business's fault that the government is doing things wrong.

So a business has zero moral responsibility to a community beyond that imposed by the government?


None that's relevant to a debate about how much minimum wage the government should impose.
 
2011-06-06 12:35:27 AM  

serial_crusher: None that's relevant to a debate about how much minimum wage the government should impose.


Then the only compulsion a business should be subject to is government regulation, and it is the duty of the government to impose such regulations as are moral.

Congratulations, you're a socialist.
 
2011-06-06 01:51:20 AM  
Cameo Thomas of Jackson works two jobs as a nursing home aide to support her 4-year-old twin sons.

Poor people have to stop breeding, don;t breed!
 
2011-06-06 01:52:05 AM  
Cameo Thomas of Jackson works two jobs as a nursing home aide to support her 4-year-old twin sons.

Well, she should've thought about that before her zygote split into two.

Problem?
 
2011-06-06 01:53:47 AM  

Fizpez: A mother with two young children -- like Thomas -- needs $24.49 an hour to house, clothe and feed her children. That's three times the minimum wage.

That's almost $50k/year - I realize working with younger than school age kids pretty much means day care but $50k/year is now the threshold for "barely making it"????

I thought $50k per year was "outrageous teacher salary" range and $250k/year was "barely making it"..... damn this new math, the numbers just don't make sense any more.


it's a single mother. $50k is about the median household income and it's obviously doable. obviously those who make 12 bucks an hour and are single shouldn't be having children. kids are expensive. but that won't stop anyone.
 
2011-06-06 01:53:54 AM  

RandomAxe: And the rich love that, they perpetuate that, they tell you that if you just keep believing, well, gosh, you too can become rich. (Only in America!)


They've also conditioned people to believe that capitalism and personal freedom are irrevocably intertwined.
 
2011-06-06 01:55:06 AM  

RandomAxe: A lot of people subconsciously believe if they act like they're running with the big dogs, they'll somehow turn into big dogs, too. It's sympathetic magic, like supply-side economics.


Worked for Palin.
 
2011-06-06 01:57:33 AM  

Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.


tellitlikeitis.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


"In American politics, the Southern strategy (new window) refers to the late-20th century Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism among Southern white voters..."
 
2011-06-06 01:58:05 AM  

itazurakko: Weaver95: so one person shouldn't contribute to the welfare of anyone else ever under any circumstances?

Your kids should go get their own damn jobs down at the mills!!!!111!!


HEYAA! (new window)
 
2011-06-06 01:59:26 AM  
But on a serious note,

"Sometimes I get off work and think, 'Man, I'm going to need a new pair of shoes,' " the 23-year-old said.

You can't have children at 19 (or even 18?) and expect to get by in today's society. Sure, teen pregnancy worked for 100s of years and even up until the 80's..possibly the 90's (as my half-sister will attest). But now? No. Forget it. I'm 27 and I can't afford a kid mentally and financially. Granted I'm in medical school (and I won't have kids, ever). People have bred themselves retarded and it won't stop. It's hard to have sympathy.
 
2011-06-06 01:59:34 AM  
GOPers want slave labor. This is all they ever have wanted
 
2011-06-06 02:01:25 AM  

LordZorch: And then there was the guy who, after a year, had a home, car and savings....


First of all, that guy walked around with a credit card in his pocket in case of a serious emergency, which is essentially admitting you can't accomplish what he did without a safety net. He was also white, educated, and of sound mental and physical health. Most people who are on the brink of homelessness do not have anywhere near the kinds of resources this person had access to.

In achievement of his goal, Shepard resolved not to use his college education, credit history, or any of his previous contacts to help himself. Additionally, he would not beg for money or use services that were not available to others. (new window)

How can you not use your education? I'm sure that the success of Shepard had nothing to do with being polite, well-spoken, or any of the multitude of behavioral norms that come with an education. He also went into his little sojourn into poverty tourism with a plan. Poor people often don't have plans. They're too farking exhausted, sick, and stressed to have them.

You mean to tell me a healthy, sane, educated, white guy with a plan was able to go on a poverty tour where he didn't experience real stress because he had a credit card in his pocket, was able to find a job, network, and get a place to live? Holy mother farking shiat.
 
2011-06-06 02:01:56 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: in today's society


Which mind you, is the product of republican control over the past 8 years

(replying to myself)
 
2011-06-06 02:03:29 AM  

Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.


It's called branding. The R's have done a great job at making people believe they are the real Americans. In reality their entire platform is nothing more than a play on people's fears and bigotries. There is no real substance.

• Dark skinned crazy people from around the world are trying to kill your children. Give is more money for guns. And if you criticize us, then you hate the troops and baby Jesus.
• Dark skinned people around the corner want your entire paycheck. Help us stop them.
• Democrats want to take your guns away. Then you'll be helpless against darkie.
• Gay people want to have sex with your children. Help us stop them.
• Democrats want to tax rich people and corporations to the point they will have no money and have to fire you. Then you'll not be able to buy the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip for your kid at Christmas.

Did I miss any?
 
2011-06-06 02:05:04 AM  

RandomAxe: A lot of people subconsciously believe if they act like they're running with the big dogs, they'll somehow turn into big dogs, too. It's sympathetic magic, like supply-side economics.


This concept is the only way I can sanely fathom how illogically middle America (and Florida) has farked up this country
 
2011-06-06 02:07:43 AM  

LordZorch: Amazing that people are still trying to float the "live on minimum wage" BS as if anyone was ever meant to.

Your FAIL is strong, libtards...


I understand where you are coming from, but when we put our labor in direct competition with nations that use slave labor, like China's Lao Gai system, we artificially deflate wages of more skilled positions down to minimum wage or near minimum-wage standards. The reality is that this "free trade" crap is anything but free... We can't hope to fix problems like poverty without dealing with things like the number one cause of personal bankruptcy (health costs), wage deflation drivers like slave-labor (tariff issue), and a multitude of other factors... but I suppose it's easier to just call someone a name and talk about how strong their fail is... I mean, it's not productive, but it sure is easier.
 
2011-06-06 02:12:41 AM  

CayceP: You mean to tell me a healthy, sane, educated, white guy with a plan was able to go on a poverty tour where he didn't experience real stress because he had a credit card in his pocket, was able to find a job, network, and get a place to live? Holy mother farking shiat.


And now you know why I love you, Cayce. ^_^
 
2011-06-06 02:13:26 AM  

serial_crusher: Fark It: serial_crusher: Occam's Chainsaw: serial_crusher: I did not ask you for platitudes, sir.

At what standard of living?

I already said in my earlier post, multiple working roommates splitting rent and bills. On top of that, I'd say enough to feed yourself and basic health maintenance. Not necessarily anything by way of saving money for college, etc. Bootstrappiness step 1 is to earn yourself a promotion above minimum wage. I don't know, what other specifics are you concerned with?

Implying you've given any.

Let's try leading by example then. How many people do you think minimum wage should support, and at what standard of living?


Minimum wage should start at $20/hr and everyone else goes up from there.

Everyone making over $5 million a year pays the rest in taxes.

Execute the bastards that complain about it.
 
2011-06-06 02:13:48 AM  

Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?


This is why we need to fund trade and vocational schools, but more than that, is why we need to stop pretending that hard work is somehow lesser than desk jockeying. Kids with mechanical aptitude need to be taught that there's nothing bad about loving playing in the dirt and building stuff. We need to change the conversation to where little Timmy knows that being a doctor and a lawyer aren't necessarily the goal, and that he can be a plumber and mom and dad will be just as proud. Hard work is what made this nation great, and the fact that now even the people who do the hard jobs in our country think of them as less important is just a big shame. The walls of Jericho didn't fall because God was pissed, they fell because all the people who should have been told that masonry is a good and honorable profession were off begging in the streets none the wiser that they could be doing so much better.
 
2011-06-06 02:16:01 AM  

CayceP: LordZorch: And then there was the guy who, after a year, had a home, car and savings....

First of all, that guy walked around with a credit card in his pocket in case of a serious emergency, which is essentially admitting you can't accomplish what he did without a safety net. He was also white, educated, and of sound mental and physical health. Most people who are on the brink of homelessness do not have anywhere near the kinds of resources this person had access to.

In achievement of his goal, Shepard resolved not to use his college education, credit history, or any of his previous contacts to help himself. Additionally, he would not beg for money or use services that were not available to others. (new window)

How can you not use your education? I'm sure that the success of Shepard had nothing to do with being polite, well-spoken, or any of the multitude of behavioral norms that come with an education. He also went into his little sojourn into poverty tourism with a plan. Poor people often don't have plans. They're too farking exhausted, sick, and stressed to have them.

You mean to tell me a healthy, sane, educated, white guy with a plan was able to go on a poverty tour where he didn't experience real stress because he had a credit card in his pocket, was able to find a job, network, and get a place to live? Holy mother farking shiat.


I just looked up the link. Thanks. Here is what he ended up with:
A February 11, 2008 article about the book in The Christian Science Monitor states, "During his first 70 days in Charleston, Shepard lived in a shelter and received food stamps. He also made new friends, finding work as a day laborer, which led to a steady job with a moving company. Ten months into the experiment, he decided to quit after learning of an illness in his family. But by then he had moved into an apartment, bought a pickup truck, and had saved close to $5,000."

So, he used government aid to get a start. Worked as a day worker (most likely illegally for tax free cash). Ended up with a place to live, basic (probably unreliable) transportation, and enough spare cash to visit the ER for a minor infection. Is it just me or did that pretty much prove the point about how hard it is? That's with the benefits that these people are so against! Then he quit after 10 months because he couldn't deal with the illness in his family with such a small amount of cash. What a joke!
 
2011-06-06 02:16:02 AM  

austin_millbarge: It's called branding. The R's have done a great job at making people believe they are the real Americans. In reality their entire platform is nothing more than a play on people's fears and bigotries. There is no real substance.

• Dark skinned crazy people from around the world are trying to kill your children. Give is more money for guns. And if you criticize us, then you hate the troops and baby Jesus.
• Dark skinned people around the corner want your entire paycheck. Help us stop them.
• Democrats want to take your guns away. Then you'll be helpless against darkie.
• Gay people want to have sex with your children. Help us stop them.
• Democrats want to tax rich people and corporations to the point they will have no money and have to fire you. Then you'll not be able to buy the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip for your kid at Christmas.
Abortion is the root of all your problems
Did I miss any?


there
 
2011-06-06 02:17:19 AM  

CayceP: You mean to tell me a healthy, sane, educated, white guy with a plan was able to go on a poverty tour where he didn't experience real stress because he had a credit card in his pocket, was able to find a job, network, and get a place to live? Holy mother farking shiat.


Don't forget he also quit because of a family emergency. I'm sure most people on minimum wage would love to be able to call a time out on being poor when something unexpected occurs.
 
2011-06-06 02:18:39 AM  

Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.


Because they believe... Everyone hates tyranny, but if you tell them one day they might have a chance to be the tyrant, they'll do nothing to reign in the insanity.
 
2011-06-06 02:20:16 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw:

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.

Employers as a part of the economic system are supposed to pay the going wage of the market. If society decides that people should be paid according to their needs instead of according to the value of their work then society as a whole has to provide it. Of course, if you don't have any education you shouldn't get children if you don't have a supportive mate. It's called personal responsibility, but many people prefer to place the burden of raising children on society as a whole. Privatize the joy of making children, socialize the burden of living with the consequences.
 
2011-06-06 02:20:40 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: austin_millbarge: It's called branding. The R's have done a great job at making people believe they are the real Americans. In reality their entire platform is nothing more than a play on people's fears and bigotries. There is no real substance.

• Dark skinned crazy people from around the world are trying to kill your children. Give is more money for guns. And if you criticize us, then you hate the troops and baby Jesus.
• Dark skinned people around the corner want your entire paycheck. Help us stop them.
• Democrats want to take your guns away. Then you'll be helpless against darkie.
• Gay people want to have sex with your children. Help us stop them.
• Democrats want to tax rich people and corporations to the point they will have no money and have to fire you. Then you'll not be able to buy the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip for your kid at Christmas.
• Abortion is the root of all your problems
• Aborting poor kids is bad
• Making them suffer with no help is better
Did I miss any?

there


FTFY
 
2011-06-06 02:21:59 AM  

odinsposse: CayceP: You mean to tell me a healthy, sane, educated, white guy with a plan was able to go on a poverty tour where he didn't experience real stress because he had a credit card in his pocket, was able to find a job, network, and get a place to live? Holy mother farking shiat.

Don't forget he also quit because of a family emergency. I'm sure most people on minimum wage would love to be able to call a time out on being poor when something unexpected occurs.


If I quit my job, I lose my health insurance immediately, then I would quickly need to come to terms with the fact that the drugs that keep me alive cost twice what I make in a month... so I'd die.

I mean, I appreciate the guy's social experiment, but to say that he experienced what it is to be poor in America is just delusional.
 
2011-06-06 02:23:50 AM  

Monophtalmos: Occam's Chainsaw:

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.

Employers as a part of the economic system are supposed to pay the going wage of the market. If society decides that people should be paid according to their needs instead of according to the value of their work then society as a whole has to provide it. Of course, if you don't have any education you shouldn't get children if you don't have a supportive mate. It's called personal responsibility, but many people prefer to place the burden of raising children on society as a whole. Privatize the joy of making children, socialize the burden of living with the consequences.


If society wants to set the pay rate by the value of their labor then shouldn't they provide the means for you to improve the value of your labor? Including the necessities in life that allow you to do so?
 
2011-06-06 02:25:47 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: RandomAxe: A lot of people subconsciously believe if they act like they're running with the big dogs, they'll somehow turn into big dogs, too. It's sympathetic magic, like supply-side economics.

This concept is the only way I can sanely fathom how illogically middle America (and Florida) has farked up this country



I don't know if it is because you are in your own little fark bubble, or if you are too young to remember (actually I was kind of young back then too) but there were a lot of conservative ideas that resonated with middle class back during the late 90's because they were simply better than the alternative.
the country came to look upon some forms of abortion unfavorably, gun control became a loser, less taxes, generally *less regulation*, an end to cradle to grave welfare for the the poor.
the democrats lost the battle of ideas on a lot of stuff for quite a while. that's why nationally democrats went to the right on a lot of things. welfare was reformed. no one dares f*ck with guns anymore. no one will dare even bring up taxes for 98% of population (although this one sucks now). more people view abortion unfavorably than ever. everyone is a free trader.
you still couldn't get people to think going back on these ideas would be good for them. that's why democrats gave them up largely.
 
2011-06-06 02:26:49 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Monophtalmos: Occam's Chainsaw:

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.

Employers as a part of the economic system are supposed to pay the going wage of the market. If society decides that people should be paid according to their needs instead of according to the value of their work then society as a whole has to provide it. Of course, if you don't have any education you shouldn't get children if you don't have a supportive mate. It's called personal responsibility, but many people prefer to place the burden of raising children on society as a whole. Privatize the joy of making children, socialize the burden of living with the consequences.

If society wants to set the pay rate by the value of their labor then shouldn't they provide the means for you to improve the value of your labor? Including the necessities in life that allow you to do so?


Maybe the problem is that we're artificially subsidizing labor so employers can pay lower wages? I mean by providing for emergency healthcare, food stamps for the working poor, and all that, we effectively guarantee the availability of a healthy and productive workforce... big businesses can count on taxpayers to foot the bill, so why should prices in the stores reflect the real costs of the inputs?

I mean, the whole of this argument boils down to market distortion and a lack of information symmetry... is a good topic, but not very good for sound bites.
 
2011-06-06 02:28:33 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: And now you know why I love you, Cayce. ^_^


How the heck have you been, anyway? You one of the daywalkers now?
 
2011-06-06 02:28:37 AM  
the dems have some winner ideas with gays and single payer now that the country will eventually embrace, hopefully sooner rather than later.
 
2011-06-06 02:30:21 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: You both forgot the most important factor: never, ever have anything go wrong. You cannot get sick, nor can your children or loved ones. Your car cannot break down. You cannot get pregnant, or get someone else pregnant. The price of basic commodities like foodstuffs, clothing, and gasoline cannot increase, or cannot outstrip the rate of inflation if you work for a semi-reputable employer. Your bills cannot increase. In short, you'd better live in Perfect Land, because something will go wrong, and you will go from living on the edge of the knife to being fish bait.


No kidding there Saw, I learned that one the hard way. Went from making maybe $14/hour or so in the late '90's and pretty much doing ok to picking up a lovely nerve pain condition and struggling like mad on disability in the mid-2k's on disability. Just a little note for the "Just do X and you'll be fine unless you're a lazy piece of shiat." Careful what you say kids, sometimes the gods have a REALLY nasty sense of humor. You may well be forced to practice what you preach. You will NOT like it. Trust me here.
 
2011-06-06 02:30:23 AM  

firefly212: Fail in Human Form: Monophtalmos: Occam's Chainsaw:

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.

Employers as a part of the economic system are supposed to pay the going wage of the market. If society decides that people should be paid according to their needs instead of according to the value of their work then society as a whole has to provide it. Of course, if you don't have any education you shouldn't get children if you don't have a supportive mate. It's called personal responsibility, but many people prefer to place the burden of raising children on society as a whole. Privatize the joy of making children, socialize the burden of living with the consequences.

If society wants to set the pay rate by the value of their labor then shouldn't they provide the means for you to improve the value of your labor? Including the necessities in life that allow you to do so?

Maybe the problem is that we're artificially subsidizing labor so employers can pay lower wages? I mean by providing for emergency healthcare, food stamps for the working poor, and all that, we effectively guarantee the availability of a healthy and productive workforce... big businesses can count on taxpayers to foot the bill, so why should prices in the stores reflect the real costs of the inputs?

I mean, the whole of this argument boils down to market distortion and a lack of information symmetry... is a good topic, but not very good for sound bites.


Businesses have incentive to keep all wages as low as possible and could be sued by their shareholders for taking into account the living conditions of their workers when deciding pay rates. Welcome to America where taking care of it's citizens is always somebody else's problem.
 
2011-06-06 02:31:04 AM  

Fark It: Of course you don't see a need for a minimum wage, you're a corporate cock-sucking conservative.


While I agree that everyone -- or at least the vast majority of people who can show up for work on a regular basis and have some marketable skill -- should be able to provide for their family and live/eat/etc. without issue, I'm not sure that at general system of "minimum wage" is a good way to guarantee that.

For one thing, there are some jobs that just aren't worth that much. I don't think we should deny people looking for non-sustaniance labor that opportunity to do such jobs. If some 12-year-old is willing to cut my grass for $4/hour, why should the federal government care? He's not supporting children of his own, and he's certainly not taking useful employment from adults.

For another, "living wage" isn't the same for someone with no children, and a free, live-in childcare provider as it is for someone with 4 children and no child care. I think both those people should be able to live an independent, non-poverty-ridden life, but a minimum-wage-based economic system is not an efficient way to make that happen.
 
2011-06-06 02:31:39 AM  
Everyone in this thread who posted that a college education is the end-all solution for your money problems clearly hasn't read a newspaper in the past five years.
 
2011-06-06 02:32:10 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: Weaver95: slayer199: Learn a skill, get an education, and stop relying on minimum wage to be a living wage.

And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?

Pay attention in high school, don't gangbang and keep your legs closed. Fill out the FAFSA in January and use your Pell grant and free state aid to go to your local community college. Get a work-study job and work like a dog during summer to avoid taking out loans. Then transfer to a four year school or earn an associate degree in a field were you can immediately start earning a paycheck.


And what happens when your sibling gets hit by a bus, or your mom gets ovarian cancer, or you dad has a heart attack and can't work, or your house gets leveled by a fire, or your school's funding dries up and they kill your program? I know people who were forced to leave school at least temporarily for each and every one of those situations, and it's hard to get back. Life throws a lot of shiat at you, it's not fair but sometimes "just work hard, keep your head down, and keep going" isn't enough to get out of a hole.
 
2011-06-06 02:33:17 AM  

CayceP: How the heck have you been, anyway? You one of the daywalkers now?


Yes ma'am. I'm working for a non-profit and loving it. My hours are very not-LOO, so that's why I've been scarce.
 
2011-06-06 02:33:28 AM  

Fail in Human Form: firefly212: Fail in Human Form: Monophtalmos: Occam's Chainsaw:

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.

Employers as a part of the economic system are supposed to pay the going wage of the market. If society decides that people should be paid according to their needs instead of according to the value of their work then society as a whole has to provide it. Of course, if you don't have any education you shouldn't get children if you don't have a supportive mate. It's called personal responsibility, but many people prefer to place the burden of raising children on society as a whole. Privatize the joy of making children, socialize the burden of living with the consequences.

If society wants to set the pay rate by the value of their labor then shouldn't they provide the means for you to improve the value of your labor? Including the necessities in life that allow you to do so?

Maybe the problem is that we're artificially subsidizing labor so employers can pay lower wages? I mean by providing for emergency healthcare, food stamps for the working poor, and all that, we effectively guarantee the availability of a healthy and productive workforce... big businesses can count on taxpayers to foot the bill, so why should prices in the stores reflect the real costs of the inputs?

I mean, the whole of this argument boils down to market distortion and a lack of information symmetry... is a good topic, but not very good for sound bites.

Businesses have incentive to keep all wages as low as possible and could be sued by their shareholders for taking into account the living conditions of their workers when deciding pay rates. Welcome to America where taking care of it's citizens is always somebody else's problem.


not how the law works.
 
2011-06-06 02:34:20 AM  

firefly212: Fail in Human Form: Monophtalmos: Occam's Chainsaw:

So you would absolve employers from the necessity to pay a living wage in order to grow their enterprise, placing the burden upon society as a whole.

Employers as a part of the economic system are supposed to pay the going wage of the market. If society decides that people should be paid according to their needs instead of according to the value of their work then society as a whole has to provide it. Of course, if you don't have any education you shouldn't get children if you don't have a supportive mate. It's called personal responsibility, but many people prefer to place the burden of raising children on society as a whole. Privatize the joy of making children, socialize the burden of living with the consequences.

If society wants to set the pay rate by the value of their labor then shouldn't they provide the means for you to improve the value of your labor? Including the necessities in life that allow you to do so?

Maybe the problem is that we're artificially subsidizing labor so employers can pay lower wages? I mean by providing for emergency healthcare, food stamps for the working poor, and all that, we effectively guarantee the availability of a healthy and productive workforce... big businesses can count on taxpayers to foot the bill, so why should prices in the stores reflect the real costs of the inputs?

I mean, the whole of this argument boils down to market distortion and a lack of information symmetry... is a good topic, but not very good for sound bites.


You're right, and of course we're also subsidizing big business on a regular basis, which feeds the beast at the expense of the common man. We're also replacing community responsibility with blind entitlement and dependence upon a poorly managed distant central government. I hate to say it, but I think a depression in which the govt. can't afford to fulfill its promises and people can't just drive all over the place buying crap and living segregated lives might actually be good for American society.
 
2011-06-06 02:34:30 AM  

Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.


Yeah, not that the democrats have all the answers (or many even), it absolutely boggles my mind that somehow poor whites are such a major voting block for the republicans.

God help us if they ever decide to remind everyone that Lincoln was a republican to go after the black vote. That would work, but (for now at least) they dont want it.


But yeah, the minimum wage needs to be raised. Its supposed to be a LIVING wage. I'm 24 years old, educated, middle class background... and i've never made more than $9 an hour. And i was a goddamn assistant store manager for a very large national retail chain...
 
2011-06-06 02:35:02 AM  
Wal Mart. Offering you 1970's prices so you can survive on our 1970's wages.®

"Hey, I got an idea.. let's find out what people are buying, make knockoffs of it in China for pennies on the dollar and flood the market, here with a bunch of big box stores. We buy in Yuan, we get paid in Dollars. I mean, who the f*ck needs the FOREX?"

"You think people will put up with that?"

"Sure, just sell them cheap, sh*tty food, too."
 
2011-06-06 02:37:26 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Monophtalmos:

If society wants to set the pay rate by the value of their labor then shouldn't they provide the means for you to improve the value of your labor? Including the necessities in life that allow you to do so?


Means to improve your work value like a public schooling system? That is - once again - not the responsibility of the economic subsystem. I think you should be able to survive on welfare. On the other hand am employer is not supposed to pay you wages according to the number of your children but according to the number of people with a similar skill and the demand of these skills. As a parent to be it pays to first switch on your brain: "Do I have a supportive mate? Do I have a good qualification to earn money and find a new job?" before deciding to have children. They will be a decades long investment and shouldn't be a burden on "society as a whole", i.e. other people.
 
2011-06-06 02:37:48 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: Yes ma'am. I'm working for a non-profit and loving it. My hours are very not-LOO, so that's why I've been scarce.


Wonderful! Glad you're doing okay.

Related to the thread, we're losing two of our best hotel people to a chemical company. They're going to be office monkeys for about $17/hr. Right now they're being paid $10/hr and treated like shiat. Management was all "OMG Y R U leaving??" today. It's pretty hilarious.

I think almost everyone here has a second job. I also love the suggestions in this thread about how to get out of shiatty situations: "Hey you! Don't make those terrible decisions you made years ago! That's the ticket!"
 
2011-06-06 02:38:02 AM  
profplump

For one thing, there are some jobs that just aren't worth that much. I don't think we should deny people looking for non-sustaniance labor that opportunity to do such jobs. If some 12-year-old is willing to cut my grass for $4/hour, why should the federal government care? He's not supporting children of his own, and he's certainly not taking useful employment from adults.

Well... when I was younger I remember going around and shoveling driveways for neighbors for 10 dollars a pop, 20 if it was a large driveway. And minimum wage existed then... so yeah. You're dumb. The Feds didn't and don't care about the money a 12 year old makes.
 
2011-06-06 02:38:31 AM  

profplump: If some 12-year-old is willing to cut my grass for $4/hour, why should the federal government care? He's not supporting children of his own, and he's certainly not taking useful employment from adults.


I'm going to assume you're not advocating for child labor so I can maintain my sanity. The reason the government cares is that we want our children learning in their off time, not taking labor jobs, so they don't end up pushing that same mower when he's 30.

/Whether or not that learning occurs is incumbent on the parents
 
2011-06-06 02:39:17 AM  

profplump: If some 12-year-old is willing to cut my grass for $4/hour, why should the federal government care?


What prevents the indigent 30-year-old from pursuing that same job?

Therein lays the problem: once you set the lowest common denominator, it applies to all workers. So the 15-year-old kid making minimum wage in an internship programming computers for end-users makes the same wage as the 35-year-old mother of two running an industrial punch to keep her two children fed.
 
2011-06-06 02:39:49 AM  

I Like Bread: Everyone in this thread who posted that a college education is the end-all solution for your money problems clearly hasn't read a newspaper in the past five years.


Ssshhh. It's about all the hope that working parents have for their offspring. If they find out they've been pulling two shifts just so their kindern can emerge into the glorious future - tens of thousands of dollars in debt and into a job market that has a "MOVED TO NEW LOCATION" sign on it, - they're gonna start burning sh*t down.

Can't have that.

Nope.

The wealthy aren't through stealing, yet. After that, sure, burn sh*t down.
 
2011-06-06 02:42:27 AM  

odinsposse: Don't forget he also quit because of a family emergency. I'm sure most people on minimum wage would love to be able to call a time out on being poor when something unexpected occurs.


I know! Right?

firefly212: I mean, I appreciate the guy's social experiment, but to say that he experienced what it is to be poor in America is just delusional.


Yeah, but he's completely the poster child for the bootstrap crowd. To be fair, I think Nickeled and Dimed is almost as bad with respect to its poverty tourism, but that author at least attempted to work within her given systems and not bail when things became difficult.
 
2011-06-06 02:47:35 AM  
This thread is depressing.

/minimum wage earner
//with a college degree
///to wipe my ass with
 
2011-06-06 02:48:13 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: profplump: If some 12-year-old is willing to cut my grass for $4/hour, why should the federal government care?

What prevents the indigent 30-year-old from pursuing that same job?

Therein lays the problem: once you set the lowest common denominator, it applies to all workers. So the 15-year-old kid making minimum wage in an internship programming computers for end-users makes the same wage as the 35-year-old mother of two running an industrial punch to keep her two children fed.


Cat came by the other day and brought all his goodies and turned my way too tall lawn onto a fu*king golf course. He asked 35.00. I gave him a fiddy. He earned it. You know, value for goods and services? If you are paying anybody 4.00 an hour to do your yard work, or anything else, you are a cheap sonofobiatch and you should look into a calendar.

Also... I don't think a bunch of grown men standing around saying "nuh UH! Timmy only paid four dollars an hour to get HIS punch presses running! No fair! No fair!" have no business being IN business. Greed will turn the septic tank you're trying to use greed to crawl out of into a septic sea, folks. Buy a history book.

/has run a couple of businesses
//more than a few punch presses
 
2011-06-06 02:48:20 AM  

CayceP: hey're going to be office monkeys for about $17/hr. Right now they're being paid $10/hr and treated like shiat. Management was all "OMG Y R U leaving??" today.


And that's the disconnect. Employers value their labor at X, because they have no reason to value them more. And they wonder why their employees clamor for better wages, better benefits, because they've grown accustomed to abusing their labor force. No wonder they fight tooth and nail against every labor concession; it directly impacts their ability to make money off the actions of their employees.

/Was back in C-bus a few weeks back
//Got me some Schmidt's brats while I was there
///They're obviously not needing more workers, as the register snatch failed to break up my brats into two packages as I asked.
////And I lost my ability to effect change when Schmidt's became a cultural landmark instead of a food vendor
\C-bus flavored slashies!
 
2011-06-06 02:48:28 AM  

Monophtalmos: Fail in Human Form: Monophtalmos:

If society wants to set the pay rate by the value of their labor then shouldn't they provide the means for you to improve the value of your labor? Including the necessities in life that allow you to do so?

Means to improve your work value like a public schooling system? That is - once again - not the responsibility of the economic subsystem. I think you should be able to survive on welfare. On the other hand am employer is not supposed to pay you wages according to the number of your children but according to the number of people with a similar skill and the demand of these skills. As a parent to be it pays to first switch on your brain: "Do I have a supportive mate? Do I have a good qualification to earn money and find a new job?" before deciding to have children. They will be a decades long investment and shouldn't be a burden on "society as a whole", i.e. other people.


A HS degree is practically worthless and people are going to breed. You try to prevent it as much as possible through education but at the end of the day people's poor decisions are a problem we just need to deal with. Businesses shouldn't have to consider a person's living situation when determining wages. That's the government's job but it has apparently abdicated the responsibility.
 
2011-06-06 02:50:03 AM  

themistergraves: This thread is depressing.

/minimum wage earner
//with a college degree
///to wipe my ass with


I'm not quite at minimum wage, but I feel your pain. I think about getting a second degree all the time, but I have no idea what it would be.
 
2011-06-06 02:51:58 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: /Was back in C-bus a few weeks back


Let me know next time you're in town. We shall have a tasty beverage, sir.
 
2011-06-06 02:53:32 AM  

CayceP: themistergraves: This thread is depressing.

/minimum wage earner
//with a college degree
///to wipe my ass with

I'm not quite at minimum wage, but I feel your pain. I think about getting a second degree all the time, but I have no idea what it would be.


Chinese.
 
2011-06-06 02:54:58 AM  

CayceP: Let me know next time you're in town. We shall have a tasty beverage, sir.


Yes ma'am. The g-parents are getting old, and me getting to town is more and more of a driving force.

If it makes you feel any better, I was only in town for a day, and only in Worthington.
 
2011-06-06 02:57:16 AM  
Yes folks, even the bootstrap market has barriers to entry. "Get a better job" is a fantastic soundbite for people who have never thought about the issue.

In theories of competition in economics, barriers to entry are obstacles that make it difficult to enter a given market. (new window)
 
2011-06-06 02:57:47 AM  

Cyno01: Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.

Yeah, not that the democrats have all the answers (or many even), it absolutely boggles my mind that somehow poor whites are such a major voting block for the republicans.

God help us if they ever decide to remind everyone that Lincoln was a republican to go after the black vote. That would work, but (for now at least) they dont want it.


But yeah, the minimum wage needs to be raised. Its supposed to be a LIVING wage. I'm 24 years old, educated, middle class background... and i've never made more than $9 an hour. And i was a goddamn assistant store manager for a very large national retail chain...


poor whites vote dem pretty heavily, or at least they used to.
the last breakdowns I could find were from the kerry/bush elections though (pew research). the obama breakdowns I saw were only $50, >$100k, >$150k, and that was it. they didn't get down into the nitty gritty like the kerry race which separated out those who make $15k
Anyway once whites started making over $30k a year they split evenly between dems and republicans IIRC (Actually I'm just about positive). (this could have changed somewhat during 08', since less educated tend to be more racist I imagine - but obama is probably a one off anyway).


here's something interesting I found while looking for the old pew study...


Personal Optimism a Dividing Line

Pro-Government Conservatives and Disadvantaged Democrats have similar socioeconomic backgrounds and confront many of the same financial struggles. Both groups are predominantly female, both are relatively poor, and large majorities in both groups express dissatisfaction with their financial circumstances.

But these groups have strikingly different outlooks on their lives and possibilities that go a long way toward explaining the differences in their political attitudes. Feelings about the power of the individual are a major factor in this division. Pro-Government Conservatives are defined, at least in part, by their optimism in this area. About three-quarters (76%) believe that most people can get ahead if they are willing to work hard and two-thirds (66%) strongly express that view. An even higher percentage of Pro-Government Conservatives (81%) say that everyone has it in his or her own power to succeed.

Disadvantaged Democrats have a gloomier outlook. Just 14% think that people can get ahead by working hard; 79% say that hard work is no guarantee of success, and 76% express that view strongly. Only 44% of Disadvantaged Democrats say that everyone has the power to succeed, while slightly more (47%) take the fatalistic view that success in life is determined by forces outside one's own control.

More broadly, opinions on personal empowerment deeply divide both the Democratic groups and independents. More than eight-in-ten Conservative Democrats (83%) think that most people who work hard can get ahead, while Liberals are somewhat less likely to subscribe to this view and Disadvantaged Democrats strongly disagree. Among center groups, Upbeats, by definition, are very optimistic on this point, and Disaffecteds much less so.

img src="http://people-press.org/files/legacy/242-12.gif">

/you can see this same sentiment represented everyday on fark. it would be interesting to follow these people and see if the attitude makes it any more likely for one group to succeed or fail in the future.
 
2011-06-06 03:00:50 AM  
the table that went with that little article.

people-press.orgView Full Size


and the url...

http://people-press.org/2005/05/10/part-3-demographics-lifestyle-and-​n​ews-cons um ption/ (new window)
 
2011-06-06 03:03:43 AM  
I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was. Imagine you're over 30 and making the lowest wage that can legally be paid. That's essentially a no-confidence vote by society. Even if it supported my family I'd be like wtf is wrong with me...I'm making minimum f'ing wage.
 
2011-06-06 03:06:02 AM  
Abox: I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was. I

Simple, their needs are met and that's enough for them. Not everyone always wants more and thinks making more says they're doing better at life.
 
2011-06-06 03:06:14 AM  
Nice isn't it? You work your arse off day in and day out only to discover that you're not getting anywhere.

Been there. Done that.

At one time, I worked three jobs. I averaged about 5 hours sleep a night. I was tired all of the time. I hated one job but stuck with it because it was the highest paying job I could find, even though I eventually found out it was a dead end one.

I recalled reading books and watching movies about poor folks who made the best out of what they had, usually for the better. Inspired, I plowed on and discovered that you can't make new 'rustic' furniture with the wrong tools, there's not much you can do to invigorate a worn out rug and even painting a room can cost you a bundle.

I did learn a lot about cheap cooking, flavoring rice and that you could dig out the moldy spots on a loaf of bread, if they're not too bad, and toast and eat it. Plus, if you're living in a month to month rental, you have to be a bit careful about what you ask the landlord to repair or next months rent can go up.

You learn that you can shut the pilot lights off on a cook stove and save quite a bit of gas. A cheap box of kitchen matches works just fine. Turning off unnecessary lights will save you VERY LITTLE on a power bill, since the majority of your bill comes from things like your refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioning and, if you have one, electric water heater.

It gets frustrating when you do manage to cut back and start having a little money then the price of food mysteriously goes up, followed by the price of gas.

Yeah. I can understand why so many folks prefer to sell drugs instead of getting a 'real' job flipping burgers for minimum wage.

Stay healthy also. Health insurance can take up to 1/4 of your monthly income. Then there's life insurance, followed by mandatory car insurance. If you have kids, expect costs to nearly quadruple.

Now there are hundreds of government back programs out there to help you out. Remember Matt Lesco and his 'free money' books? Every program he listed, and there were thousands, was real.

However, you don't qualify for 99% of them for various reasons, often because many are State specific and it seems the good ones are always in another state. There's usually about 10 different reasons why YOU will not qualify and if you do, applying for them can be a complex nightmare.

A large portion are race specific. There's a ton for native Americans, Hispanics and African Americans.

You can work your arse off and apply for a grant and find out that you work too well, in that your income is about $10 a year too much. (Really! Folks have been denied because they make $5.00 a month too much.)

Nine out of 10 advertised programs to help you get ahead, one's which you have to pay a fee for, are actually krap, just there to get the listing company money. Most of those rent to own stores, if not all, charge you more for a product than you would pay for it from a retail store plus there is always a minimum rental time, of at least two months.

Those days when you could bootstrap yourself up into at least lower middle class were also the days when a Dr. visit cost $10, a months supply of pill would be about $5.00, new glasses might run $50 and gas was $0.25 a gallon. A day in the hospital might cost about $100. You were also living very well if your home, brand new, cost $35,000. An efficiency apartment would run you about $110 a month.

In 1971 I went to college for about $600 a year. In 1975 I went back for $1800 for a couple of semesters. Now, in 2011, I don't even want to think what it must cost. Probably close to what used to be the National Debt.

Face it, folks, we're all pretty well screwed no matter how we cut it, unless things just happen to fall just right.

Hard work is no longer the way to a better life. However, it might just lead you to an early grave.
 
2011-06-06 03:07:12 AM  

CayceP: Occam's Chainsaw: Yes ma'am. I'm working for a non-profit and loving it. My hours are very not-LOO, so that's why I've been scarce.

Wonderful! Glad you're doing okay.

Related to the thread, we're losing two of our best hotel people to a chemical company. They're going to be office monkeys for about $17/hr. Right now they're being paid $10/hr and treated like shiat. Management was all "OMG Y R U leaving??" today. It's pretty hilarious.

I think almost everyone here has a second job. I also love the suggestions in this thread about how to get out of shiatty situations: "Hey you! Don't make those terrible decisions you made years ago! That's the ticket!"


who said that? people are saying *you probably made a series of awful decisions with your life starting at age 11 until the present moment. what do you expect? a life filled with opulence and tiny giraffes? thems the breaks. just be thankful you don't live in Timbuktu.* if you didn't then you can probably pull yourself out of it.
 
2011-06-06 03:08:07 AM  

Abox: I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was.


So how do you change that paradigm? When society judges you by what you've made and by what they think you can make, how do you break out of the paradigm which has already decided you're not worth anything but minimum wage?
 
2011-06-06 03:09:09 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: CayceP: hey're going to be office monkeys for about $17/hr. Right now they're being paid $10/hr and treated like shiat. Management was all "OMG Y R U leaving??" today.

And that's the disconnect. Employers value their labor at X, because they have no reason to value them more.


2 weeks ago, my employer sent out a mass email saying that they are likely to significantly reduce salaries, benefits and retirement July 1. Last week, the 68 most senior employees, including managerial staff, submitted their retirement forms, and a large number of those unable to retire began submitting resumes and applications elsewhere. All of the clerical staff in one department have already accepted other jobs. The wizards on the top floor and utterly baffled and more than a little pissed at the prospect of reduced productivity effecting next quarter's bonuses.
 
2011-06-06 03:09:18 AM  

bunner: The wealthy aren't through stealing, yet. After that, sure, burn sh*t down.


Sometimes I wish America had a more Greek strain to it.
 
2011-06-06 03:09:20 AM  

Abox: I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was. Imagine you're over 30 and making the lowest wage that can legally be paid. That's essentially a no-confidence vote by society. Even if it supported my family I'd be like wtf is wrong with me...I'm making minimum f'ing wage.


Actually if you're a male in America and supporting your family, that's not a no confidence vote at all. You're a Good Man who does the Right Thing. It's awesome you think a woman would be perfectly okay with minimum wage, though.
 
2011-06-06 03:10:15 AM  

Abox: I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was. Imagine you're over 30 and making the lowest wage that can legally be paid. That's essentially a no-confidence vote by society. Even if it supported my family I'd be like wtf is wrong with me...I'm making minimum f'ing wage.


No one wants to make minimum wage and the idea is if we make it so that he can support himself on that level of income and provide opportunities to improve himself he will. Voila, he's no longer making minimum wage and is now paying more taxes and buying more crap so the next guy has the same opportunity. If he's spending all his time working or has no pratical way to improve he never will. This seems lost on conservates who believe if you make his life miserable enough he'll magically change.

/Or die off, they don't really care either way
 
2011-06-06 03:10:21 AM  
What I love most is that the people who are calling for people to keep their legs shut tend to be the same people who are against abortion. Cause hey, they can give them up for adoption... that's not difficult to do at all! And there's a HUGE market for black babies, right?

And for the people who already have kids... well, fark them for the poor choices they've made and cannot change. They can just starve.
 
2011-06-06 03:10:57 AM  

relcec: not how the law works.


That's exactly how the law works. It's called shareholder primacy, and it means that companies have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profit and give it it ALL back to Shareholders. So, while the law probably explicitly says you shouldn't rape, murder pillage, and grind people into powder (all these being 'illegal') the subtext is clear: If you can make a profit putting babies on spikes than WHY AREN'T YOU PUTTING BABIES ON SPIKES? What? The Law doesn't allow that here? Well Farking Find some place where you can put babies on farking spikes or we will SUE YOU!

It's an amazing turn around for the 'little investor' from the stock market of the turn of the 20th century, and it's a mark of just how many corporations are making a business in investing. Want your rights to be defended? Be a corporation!
 
2011-06-06 03:11:25 AM  
Yes, the fear of perceived failure is a wonderful tool.

It allows pigsh*t rich people to raise the bar to ridiculous levels for even survival level incomes and then tell the people they shove out of the way "You don't want to be a FAILURE, do you?"

Ever hear the word "overqualified"?

I have heard it more times than I care to recount. I finally just got very good at something and then started telling people who wanted to use my services for dogsh*t that they were "underfunded". They found the money to pay my asking price pretty quickly. I guess they didn't want to be perceived as a failure. Chasing around IUOUs makes fools and whores of us all, and I for one, am pretty fed up with it.
 
2011-06-06 03:12:24 AM  
Rik01: Thank you, your insight is valuable. I see this in my everyday life, those who have no chance of getting past their current position, but who strive hard to push onwards, as though by force of will they could change reality.
 
2011-06-06 03:13:55 AM  
Minimum wage plus kids equals pretty much farked.

But the government shouldn't help the kids, should minimize education for them, demonize their parents, and eliminate planned parenthood.

But don't tell the people who believe that that you think they want a permanent underclass. They are working their asses off to get us some sweet manufacturing jobs. Wed have them back already if we could just stop regulating. No more FDA, no more FCC, no more osha,and we can have factories as full as any third world country around.
 
2011-06-06 03:16:22 AM  

relcec: CayceP: Occam's Chainsaw: Yes ma'am. I'm working for a non-profit and loving it. My hours are very not-LOO, so that's why I've been scarce.

Wonderful! Glad you're doing okay.

Related to the thread, we're losing two of our best hotel people to a chemical company. They're going to be office monkeys for about $17/hr. Right now they're being paid $10/hr and treated like shiat. Management was all "OMG Y R U leaving??" today. It's pretty hilarious.

I think almost everyone here has a second job. I also love the suggestions in this thread about how to get out of shiatty situations: "Hey you! Don't make those terrible decisions you made years ago! That's the ticket!"

who said that? people are saying *you probably made a series of awful decisions with your life starting at age 11 until the present moment. what do you expect? a life filled with opulence and tiny giraffes? thems the breaks. just be thankful you don't live in Timbuktu.* if you didn't then you can probably pull yourself out of it.


It's the same rationalization. "Everyone who is poor deserves it."

Oh, I almost missed that line about opulence. We're talking about a living wage (as opposed to a minimum wage) in this thread. It would help your argument if you didn't run to a laughable extreme (opulence).
 
2011-06-06 03:17:29 AM  

Notabunny: All of the clerical staff in one department have already accepted other jobs. The wizards on the top floor and utterly baffled and more than a little pissed at the prospect of reduced productivity effecting next quarter's bonuses.


That's awesome. I find the people who make those kinds of decisions have often never held a front line position or been clerical staff.
 
2011-06-06 03:17:39 AM  

rubi_con_man: relcec: not how the law works.

That's exactly how the law works. It's called shareholder primacy, and it means that companies have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profit and give it it ALL back to Shareholders. So, while the law probably explicitly says you shouldn't rape, murder pillage, and grind people into powder (all these being 'illegal') the subtext is clear: If you can make a profit putting babies on spikes than WHY AREN'T YOU PUTTING BABIES ON SPIKES? What? The Law doesn't allow that here? Well Farking Find some place where you can put babies on farking spikes or we will SUE YOU!

It's an amazing turn around for the 'little investor' from the stock market of the turn of the 20th century, and it's a mark of just how many corporations are making a business in investing. Want your rights to be defended? Be a corporation!


it's exactly not how the law works. there is something called the business judgment rule that is very difficult to overcome. so difficult to overcome suits are rather rare except in very extreme cases. you need to request a refund for your GED in law.
 
2011-06-06 03:17:45 AM  
relcec: you probably made a series of awful decisions with your life starting at age 11 until the present moment. what do you expect?

And what if he didn't make any bad decisions? Why is it always on those seeking employment and not employers?

Here's an example of how things have changed: up to about 20 years ago or so it was possible to talk your way into a job at one of the major advertising agencies. If you had a good head on your shoulders, that was it. Even the really big firms like Leo Burnett and Ogilvy and Mather were stocked with people who had talked their way into their jobs. Then bit by bit the big firms started merging and buying each other out, along with buying up a lot of smaller firms. So now you have big conglomerates and then smaller independent firms. The big ones decided, for no discernible reason and no obvious benefit, that the old way of doing things just wasn't the way to do it. So no more people just talking their way into jobs there. And the small firms have basically decided to ape the big ones. So now people who used to be able to get jobs in advertising, no longer can, unless they get whatever degrees the ad firms want. Granted we're not talking about very many people if we look only at advertising, but as it has happened in advertising it has happened elsewhere. Yet people consistently try to blame individuals for failing instead of employers, who never even get asked "What the hell are you thinking?".
 
2011-06-06 03:18:39 AM  

CayceP: themistergraves: This thread is depressing.

/minimum wage earner
//with a college degree
///to wipe my ass with

I'm not quite at minimum wage, but I feel your pain. I think about getting a second degree all the time, but I have no idea what it would be.


I figured Economics would be a funny one for me to get at this point, but you know those mistakes that successful people aren't allowed to make?... well, I let my loans default because I got sick of doing deferments. Will be tough (impossible) for me to get another degree without any sort of loan, given my current income.
 
2011-06-06 03:19:20 AM  

relcec: more people view abortion unfavorably than ever.


Generally those that don't favor choice out-breed those who are fine with choice.

Example: my mom raised us pro-choice. All 2 of us.
My g/f's step mom's mom had her at 16 and she was 1 of 8. She ended up having her first kid at 15 and ended up having 6 kids. 5 of her 6 kids have had 7,6,6,5,4,1 kids respectively (her youngest died after his first child). Her granddaughter is 18 and has 2 children (ages 3 and 1). Her GREAT grandaughter had her first kid at 14.

All of them are pro-life. They're not protest the womens shelter pro-life but they're prolife.

Grand total?
2 pro-choice sons (none of which have any kids) vs 6+7+6+6+5+4+1+1(for the great granddaugher).


I'm ignoring the kids too young to breed and those I haven't met.
 
2011-06-06 03:21:13 AM  
rubi_con_man: s. It's called shareholder primacy, and it means that companies have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profit and give it it ALL back to Shareholders.

Actually the law doesn't say that. There is the decision in Dodge v Ford, but that was a state decision ages ago and now is considered a dead letter. Also the emphasis on profits for shareholders is very recent, only got going in the 80s and didn't really kick into gear until the 90s. Plus, it's not universal, it's not something you find among public corporations in England, Japan, France or wherever else.
 
2011-06-06 03:22:15 AM  

Smackledorfer: But don't tell the people who believe that that you think they want a permanent underclass. They are working their asses off to get us some sweet manufacturing jobs. Wed have them back already if we could just stop regulating. No more FDA, no more FCC, no more osha,and we can have factories as full as any third world country around.


And once a week, we could have roadkill roasts and a "Most Uniquely Maimed" contest.

Winner gets a sandwich.

Of course, the sandwich will be tainted and they'll vomit until they hemorrhage...

...but it will sure taste good going down and will get some of the taste of their corporate feudal lord's dick out of their mouth. Maybe we can get some of those free suicide nets from Foxconn.
 
2011-06-06 03:22:52 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: relcec: more people view abortion unfavorably than ever.

Generally those that don't favor choice out-breed those who are fine with choice.

Example: my mom raised us pro-choice. All 2 of us.
My g/f's step mom's mom had her at 16 and she was 1 of 8. She ended up having her first kid at 15 and ended up having 6 kids. 5 of her 6 kids have had 7,6,6,5,4,1 kids respectively (her youngest died after his first child). Her granddaughter is 18 and has 2 children (ages 3 and 1). Her GREAT grandaughter had her first kid at 14.

All of them are pro-life. They're not protest the womens shelter pro-life but they're prolife.

Grand total?
2 pro-choice sons (none of which have any kids) vs 6+7+6+6+5+4+1+1(for the great granddaugher).


I'm ignoring the kids too young to breed and those I haven't met.


Wasn't that the premise to a movie?

/Gremlins?
 
2011-06-06 03:23:37 AM  

CayceP: Abox: I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was. Imagine you're over 30 and making the lowest wage that can legally be paid. That's essentially a no-confidence vote by society. Even if it supported my family I'd be like wtf is wrong with me...I'm making minimum f'ing wage.

Actually if you're a male in America and supporting your family, that's not a no confidence vote at all. You're a Good Man who does the Right Thing. It's awesome you think a woman would be perfectly okay with minimum wage, though.



I wouldn't hold it against a woman to be unemployed and sponging off some rich dude s'long as she makes him happy.
 
2011-06-06 03:25:42 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: relcec: more people view abortion unfavorably than ever.

Generally those that don't favor choice out-breed those who are fine with choice.


It's close, but more people consider themselves pro-choice, according to Gallup: pro-life declining by 2% (new window)

Thanks, Britney Spear's Speculum. I was trying to figure out why I had relece on ignore. I suppose this sort of thing is why.
 
2011-06-06 03:26:11 AM  

Abox: I wouldn't hold it against a woman to be unemployed and sponging off some rich dude s'long as she makes him happy.


They know.
 
2011-06-06 03:26:38 AM  

Baryogenesis: relcec: CayceP: Occam's Chainsaw: Yes ma'am. I'm working for a non-profit and loving it. My hours are very not-LOO, so that's why I've been scarce.

Wonderful! Glad you're doing okay.

Related to the thread, we're losing two of our best hotel people to a chemical company. They're going to be office monkeys for about $17/hr. Right now they're being paid $10/hr and treated like shiat. Management was all "OMG Y R U leaving??" today. It's pretty hilarious.

I think almost everyone here has a second job. I also love the suggestions in this thread about how to get out of shiatty situations: "Hey you! Don't make those terrible decisions you made years ago! That's the ticket!"

who said that? people are saying *you probably made a series of awful decisions with your life starting at age 11 until the present moment. what do you expect? a life filled with opulence and tiny giraffes? thems the breaks. just be thankful you don't live in Timbuktu.* if you didn't then you can probably pull yourself out of it.

It's the same rationalization. "Everyone who is poor deserves it."

Oh, I almost missed that line about opulence. We're talking about a living wage (as opposed to a minimum wage) in this thread. It would help your argument if you didn't run to a laughable extreme (opulence).


no it's not.
it's the theory that if you are actually poor you probably made some dumb mistakes.
you can work very hard your whole life and still be poor, but you are probably either very dumb or quite unlucky. if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.
how many people do you know that have busted there asses their entire lives that are still actually poor that aren't borderline retarded, chemical dependent, or have had some shiat luck along the way that would have probably put anyone down? I've never known anyone. I've known a lot of people that f*cked around in high school and college, were never given very much by anyone including family and never were the hardest workers in the world, and still ended up well north of the median income in this country.
 
2011-06-06 03:28:39 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Abox: I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was. Imagine you're over 30 and making the lowest wage that can legally be paid. That's essentially a no-confidence vote by society. Even if it supported my family I'd be like wtf is wrong with me...I'm making minimum f'ing wage.

No one wants to make minimum wage and the idea is if we make it so that he can support himself on that level of income and provide opportunities to improve himself he will. Voila, he's no longer making minimum wage and is now paying more taxes and buying more crap so the next guy has the same opportunity. If he's spending all his time working or has no pratical way to improve he never will. This seems lost on conservates who believe if you make his life miserable enough he'll magically change.



If the path to your happiness rests on the government raising minimum wage then you have failed brutha.
 
2011-06-06 03:29:06 AM  
To all of the pro choice folks.

Good idea.

I'm pro choice.

Going down to yon clinic for free rubbers is a choice, too. Grow the f*ck up.
 
2011-06-06 03:30:14 AM  

Rik01: You can work your arse off and apply for a grant and find out that you work too well, in that your income is about $10 a year too much. (Really! Folks have been denied because they make $5.00 a month too much.)


They've got so picky here in Washington that our office girl, who takes advantage of the state health care system (while I earn way too much to qualify but not enough to afford health insurance), has to reapply every other week when she gets her paycheck. Because she works between 38 and 42 hours a week, a ONE HOUR OF PAY is enough to change whether she qualifies for one rate or another.

It's effing stupid. The end result is that if she works one hour of overtime she loses all of money to her health insurance payment bump.
 
2011-06-06 03:30:22 AM  
relcec: . if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.

Tell that to the people of Appalachia.
 
2011-06-06 03:30:49 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: CayceP: You mean to tell me a healthy, sane, educated, white guy with a plan was able to go on a poverty tour where he didn't experience real stress because he had a credit card in his pocket, was able to find a job, network, and get a place to live? Holy mother farking shiat.

And now you know why I love you, Cayce. ^_^


Its cool that its still a possibility to escape poverty, but THIS.

You get sick and you are screwed. Your car breaks down and you end up well below your goals.

Poor people aren't by definition worse at life - they are doing the same thing most people would do if in the same circumstances. They'd try for a while, fall a few times, and stop working hard for the future.
 
2011-06-06 03:31:09 AM  

Abox: Fail in Human Form: Abox: I don't see how an adult male US citizen could ever be satisfied making minimum wage no matter what it was. Imagine you're over 30 and making the lowest wage that can legally be paid. That's essentially a no-confidence vote by society. Even if it supported my family I'd be like wtf is wrong with me...I'm making minimum f'ing wage.

No one wants to make minimum wage and the idea is if we make it so that he can support himself on that level of income and provide opportunities to improve himself he will. Voila, he's no longer making minimum wage and is now paying more taxes and buying more crap so the next guy has the same opportunity. If he's spending all his time working or has no pratical way to improve he never will. This seems lost on conservates who believe if you make his life miserable enough he'll magically change.


If the path to your happiness rests on the government raising minimum wage then you have failed brutha.


I make more than min wage and do ok for myself but I do believe the underlying principle would lead to greater prosperity for our country.
 
2011-06-06 03:33:04 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: relcec: more people view abortion unfavorably than ever.

Generally those that don't favor choice out-breed those who are fine with choice.

Example: my mom raised us pro-choice. All 2 of us.
My g/f's step mom's mom had her at 16 and she was 1 of 8. She ended up having her first kid at 15 and ended up having 6 kids. 5 of her 6 kids have had 7,6,6,5,4,1 kids respectively (her youngest died after his first child). Her granddaughter is 18 and has 2 children (ages 3 and 1). Her GREAT grandaughter had her first kid at 14.

All of them are pro-life. They're not protest the womens shelter pro-life but they're prolife.

Grand total?
2 pro-choice sons (none of which have any kids) vs 6+7+6+6+5+4+1+1(for the great granddaugher).


I'm ignoring the kids too young to breed and those I haven't met.


that has nothing to do with it.
it has everything to do with the technology that allowed people to see late term development in the last few decades. maybe a little something to do with apathy on the pro choice side since the battle had been won.
 
2011-06-06 03:34:19 AM  

WhyteRaven74: relcec: . if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.

Tell that to the people of Appalachia.


that isn't even the real world. might as well say tell it to Somalia.
 
2011-06-06 03:35:37 AM  
if Appalachia is really like deliverance, and coal miners daughter, and that movie about the white lightning making bastard and all.
 
2011-06-06 03:37:31 AM  
relcec: that isn't even the real world

It is very much the real world. More to the point, it's a part of the United States.
 
2011-06-06 03:38:21 AM  

relcec: WhyteRaven74: relcec: . if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.

Tell that to the people of Appalachia.

that isn't even the real world. might as well say tell it to Somalia.


The avg income here, according to Wikipedia, is about 17.5k a year. Better than Somalia but give it a few more years for the last of the mills to shut down and check back in.
 
2011-06-06 03:38:23 AM  

CayceP: It's close, but more people consider themselves pro-choice, according to Gallup: pro-life declining by 2% (new window)


I wonder what the specific circumstances are? If they mean illegal except in cases of rape/incest then that's total hypocrisy. Since the anti-choice brigade equates abortion with murder, why does rape and incest get a pass? It's still a "human," right?

So if exceptions should be made for rape and incest then they should support the murder the born children that are the product of rape/incest.
 
2011-06-06 03:39:07 AM  
The wealthy don't want greater prosperity for our country.

It's not necessary anymore. They have over .75 billion people who will bust ass for pretty much enough money to buy corn dogs, here. They want to keep our currency juuuust healthy enough to keep their headquarters here, keep oil traded in that currency and put the difference in their pockets.

They only want America healthy enough to have about 60% of the population to be able to afford the trash they import and pay their corporate expenses with taxes. The other 39% can go sleep in the streets.

The people who approve of this economy are the other 1%.
 
2011-06-06 03:39:55 AM  

Fail in Human Form: relcec: WhyteRaven74: relcec: . if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.

Tell that to the people of Appalachia.

that isn't even the real world. might as well say tell it to Somalia.

The avg income here, according to Wikipedia, is about 17.5k a year. Better than Somalia but give it a few more years for the last of the mills to shut down and check back in.


that isn't as bad as I suspected. what is the median?
 
2011-06-06 03:40:53 AM  

Fukuzawa: profplump

For one thing, there are some jobs that just aren't worth that much. I don't think we should deny people looking for non-sustaniance labor that opportunity to do such jobs. If some 12-year-old is willing to cut my grass for $4/hour, why should the federal government care? He's not supporting children of his own, and he's certainly not taking useful employment from adults.

Well... when I was younger I remember going around and shoveling driveways for neighbors for 10 dollars a pop, 20 if it was a large driveway. And minimum wage existed then... so yeah. You're dumb. The Feds didn't and don't care about the money a 12 year old makes.


LOL @ twenty for a driveway. I think we have an idea of your daddy's income level. Go to Detroit and ask for twenty bucks for a half hours work.
 
2011-06-06 03:43:04 AM  

relcec: that has nothing to do with it.


New math people. 2=36. You heard it here first

it has everything to do with the technology that allowed people to see late term development in the last few decades.
Abortions don't occur "late term." Get a new talking point.

maybe a little something to do with apathy on the pro choice side
Sure.


since the battle had been won.
Nope. Abortion is still legal in the US.
 
2011-06-06 03:43:11 AM  

relcec: Fail in Human Form: relcec: WhyteRaven74: relcec: . if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.

Tell that to the people of Appalachia.

that isn't even the real world. might as well say tell it to Somalia.

The avg income here, according to Wikipedia, is about 17.5k a year. Better than Somalia but give it a few more years for the last of the mills to shut down and check back in.

that isn't as bad as I suspected. what is the median?


Donno but if you make 30k here, and you're not one of the few steel workers still employed, you're doing much better than most. If nothing comes in to replace the jobs in the next 5-10 years it'll be Detroit writ large.
 
2011-06-06 03:45:03 AM  

CayceP: I was trying to figure out why I had relece on ignore. I suppose this sort of thing is why.


The dumb talking points? Yeah. I see your point regarding him.
 
2011-06-06 03:45:34 AM  
relcec: that isn't even the real world. might as well say tell it to Somalia.

You want to know how I know you live in a suburb ?
 
2011-06-06 03:45:57 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: I wonder what the specific circumstances are?


There's a breakdown of some of the circumstances at the link. Abortion is a weird item to poll; most respondents are overburdened by the questions associated with the subject. The average person who is interrupted by a Gallup call isn't going to have the answer to "When does life begin?" at the ready. Unless they're conservative or whatever, in which case it's probably oversampling pro-life respondents.

/csb, etc
 
2011-06-06 03:47:13 AM  

relcec: It's the same rationalization. "Everyone who is poor deserves it."

Oh, I almost missed that line about opulence. We're talking about a living wage (as opposed to a minimum wage) in this thread. It would help your argument if you didn't run to a laughable extreme (opulence).

no it's not.
it's the theory that if you are actually poor you probably made some dumb mistakes.
you can work very hard your whole life and still be poor, but you are probably either very dumb or quite unlucky. if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.
how many people do you know that have busted there asses their entire lives that are still actually poor that aren't borderline retarded, chemical dependent, or have had some shiat luck along the way that would have probably put anyone down? I've never known anyone. I've known a lot of people that f*cked around in high school and college, were never given very much by anyone including family and never were the hardest workers in the world, and still ended up well north of the median income in this country
. Everyone who is poor deserves it.


FTFY

Restate your initial position (everyone who is poor deserves it) with different wording and include a fantastic anecdote about people you know. Perhaps I should counter with an anecdote of my own!

All you're doing is constructing elaborate rationalizations (your words: dumb, retarded, chemically dependent) as to why people deserve their lot in life regardless of whether they do or not. The reality is hard work isn't an automatic path to success, people do make mistakes but that doesn't mean they should spend the rest of their lives paying for them and life will shiat on you.

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
 
2011-06-06 03:49:13 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: CayceP: It's close, but more people consider themselves pro-choice, according to Gallup: pro-life declining by 2% (new window)

I wonder what the specific circumstances are? If they mean illegal except in cases of rape/incest then that's total hypocrisy. Since the anti-choice brigade equates abortion with murder, why does rape and incest get a pass? It's still a "human," right?

So if exceptions should be made for rape and incest then they should support the murder the born children that are the product of rape/incest.


for a supposedly smart guy you sure fark around with a lot of derp. How do you get into med school without understanding what total hypocrisy means? what school do you go to?
 
2011-06-06 03:49:23 AM  

Fukuzawa: And minimum wage existed then... so yeah. You're dumb. The Feds didn't and don't care about the money a 12 year old makes.


Your employer was breaking the law. And you let him. So you're dumb.
 
2011-06-06 03:50:16 AM  
I didn't parse the quote in my previous comment correctly. The lines above the strikeout are my words, not relcec's.
 
2011-06-06 03:51:01 AM  

WhyteRaven74: relcec: . if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.

Tell that to the people of Appalachia.


This.

I see it every f*cking day: the people of Appalachia, and the sea that submerges them. I see the Floridiots that bring marginal economic survival, and who destroy it in the same breath. I see the local economy subsumed beneath the belief that tourism will bring survival, and I see the skew that tourism imposes upon our local economy, our ability to buy groceries and basic commodities and the land your family stood on for generations. And our local governments, they have no clue how to balance tourism dollars against a robust local economy, so they drive the whole enterprise against the rocks in hope that outsiders will continue to blow their money on frippery. And they reap the rewards: Maggie Valley is dead. Balsam is a shadow. Waynesville is the arts community ex-pats from Asheville proper, trying to simultaneously justify their existence and build up something, while the local CoC and the tourism board burn the county down around them in hopes they can fertilize their own holdings.

What do you do when the well-to-do in your community are content to commit long-term suicide, and the rest have no voice?
 
2011-06-06 03:51:16 AM  

Fail in Human Form: I'm going to assume you're not advocating for child labor so I can maintain my sanity. The reason the government cares is that we want our children learning in their off time, not taking labor jobs, so they don't end up pushing that same mower when he's 30.


A) Children do work. I have worked continuously since I was 14, and intermittently since I was 11.. Ignoring that is bad economics.
B) I agree, education is good, and children (and adults) should have access to education. None of that changes what I said.
 
2011-06-06 03:52:53 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: relcec: that has nothing to do with it.

New math people. 2=36. You heard it here first

it has everything to do with the technology that allowed people to see late term development in the last few decades.
Abortions don't occur "late term." Get a new talking point.

maybe a little something to do with apathy on the pro choice side
Sure.


since the battle had been won.
Nope. Abortion is still legal in the US.


no way are you going to med school. just way too stupid. you misunderstood almost everyone of those arguments. unless you're medical school is in Antigua. you go to school offshore, right? what did you get one your mcats?
 
2011-06-06 03:53:08 AM  

profplump: Fukuzawa: And minimum wage existed then... so yeah. You're dumb. The Feds didn't and don't care about the money a 12 year old makes.

Your employer was breaking the law. And you let him. So you're dumb.


The below ground economy has always been alive and well.

And that's a shame because the more money that flows safely and profitably above the radar, the more healthy the economy is and the more there is for capital investment.

Of course, the more money that flows above the radar, the more is sucked into revenue holes to fund 4 year studies on the composition of hamster sh*t, replete with 14 day junkets to Venezuela, or gets pocketed by corporate welfare queens.

That's a shame, too...
 
2011-06-06 03:53:15 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: What prevents the indigent 30-year-old from pursuing that same job?


That's my whole point -- some work isn't worth "minimum wage". if you set that rate to be a rate that would support an adult living independently. I think all adults should be able to live independently on their own labor, I just don't think a minimum-wage-based system is an efficient way to accomplish that.
 
2011-06-06 03:55:12 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: What do you do when the well-to-do in your community are content to commit long-term suicide, and the rest have no voice?


T H I S

 
2011-06-06 03:55:59 AM  

bunner: The below ground economy has always been alive and well.

And that's a shame because the more money that flows safely and profitably above the radar, the more healthy the economy is and the more there is for capital investment.


I agree. And that's why I don't think raising the minimum wage is the ultimate solution to the problem.
 
2011-06-06 03:56:25 AM  

relcec: Britney Spear's Speculum: CayceP: It's close, but more people consider themselves pro-choice, according to Gallup: pro-life declining by 2% (new window)

I wonder what the specific circumstances are? If they mean illegal except in cases of rape/incest then that's total hypocrisy. Since the anti-choice brigade equates abortion with murder, why does rape and incest get a pass? It's still a "human," right?

So if exceptions should be made for rape and incest then they should support the murder the born children that are the product of rape/incest.

for a supposedly smart guy you sure fark around with a lot of derp. How do you get into med school without understanding what total hypocrisy means? what school do you go to?


The argument goes like this.

A fetus is the same as a person and killing a person is murder. If you make an exception for killing a fetus when it is the product of rape or incest then the exception also applies to the child after it is born because you've already called a fetus and a person equivalent.

If you're comfortable making a distinction between a fetus and person in the case of rape and incest then it's reasonable to make other distinctions as well.
 
2011-06-06 03:56:44 AM  

Baryogenesis: relcec: It's the same rationalization. "Everyone who is poor deserves it."

Oh, I almost missed that line about opulence. We're talking about a living wage (as opposed to a minimum wage) in this thread. It would help your argument if you didn't run to a laughable extreme (opulence).

no it's not.
it's the theory that if you are actually poor you probably made some dumb mistakes.
you can work very hard your whole life and still be poor, but you are probably either very dumb or quite unlucky. if you work very hard your whole life, starting with school on forward, you have a great shot at having a home and live the median life stile at least.
how many people do you know that have busted there asses their entire lives that are still actually poor that aren't borderline retarded, chemical dependent, or have had some shiat luck along the way that would have probably put anyone down? I've never known anyone. I've known a lot of people that f*cked around in high school and college, were never given very much by anyone including family and never were the hardest workers in the world, and still ended up well north of the median income in this country. Everyone who is poor deserves it.

FTFY

Restate your initial position (everyone who is poor deserves it) with different wording and include a fantastic anecdote about people you know. Perhaps I should counter with an anecdote of my own!

All you're doing is constructing elaborate rationalizations (your words: dumb, retarded, chemically dependent) as to why people deserve their lot in life regardless of whether they do or not. The reality is hard work isn't an automatic path to success, people do make mistakes but that doesn't mean they should spend the rest of their lives paying for them and life will shiat on you.

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."


how many people do you know that have busted there asses their entire lives that are still actually poor that aren't borderline retarded, chemical dependent, or have had some shiat luck along the way that would have probably put anyone down? why don't you answer the question? because you either have to lie, or you have to say that you can probably have a decent life if you bust your ass. you people are such f*cking babies. your life sucks because you didn't try hard. get over it. it will be over soon.
 
2011-06-06 03:57:46 AM  

FredaDeStilleto: In PA, if you make federal minimum wage you may be eligible for public assistance, depending upon the number of family members you support. I'm sure that's true in many states.

So, what happens is the burden of providing for the working poor is shifted from the employer to the state. What's wrong with this picture?



i632.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-06-06 04:00:44 AM  
relcec: how many people do you know that have busted there asses their entire lives that are still actually poor that aren't borderline retarded, chemical dependent, or have had some shiat luck along the way that would have probably put anyone down?

I've met quite a few people like that. As for those afflicted by some bad luck, there's next to think offered to right things to get them past whatever bad luck has thrown their way.
 
2011-06-06 04:02:03 AM  

In Allah We Trust: Bathia_Mapes: Weaver95: And just how are you supposed to 'get an education' when you've got no money, no college fund and no options?

Exactly.

Getting an education is easy. Paying for it is another issue altogether. Sallie Mae will give a loan to anyone. She will also pursue you till your death to get it back, but throw her a few hundred $$$'s every quarter and she'll stay off your back.
My point is that anyone can get an education. Not everyone will succeed.


Sounds great - so when you're working one full time and another part time job to make ends meet, where do you fit in those college classes? No matter how sweetly you smile when you ask if they'd like fries with that, minimum wage is still minimum wage.

This idea that you can just go to college and start making a middle class income is a fantasy. Even if you can fit the classes into your day, when you finally graduate you'll have a huge debt load from the student loans - and you'll quickly find that an applicant with a shiny new degree and no experience in the field has a very hard time finding a job. Those grants are great if you can get them but they won't pay the bills.

That "trickle down" thing really means that the middle class citizens trickle down to the lower class. Do all the right things and soon you'll be able to hear about how you're overqualified for those minimum wage jobs.

For a big reality check, visit your favorite fast food restaurant and ask the crew how many of them have a college degree or are working towards one.
 
2011-06-06 04:02:24 AM  

profplump: I agree. And that's why I don't think raising the minimum wage is the ultimate solution to the problem.


What it would do would allow people who have no access to any sort of via investment capital to pay their bills, live indoors, and perchance invest into something that would allow them to leverage a return that is greater than the outlay. You know, get more back than you put in, minus labor. That *is* the game, here, isn't it? Only if you start letting the monkeys in the game, you might run out of monkeys. The most worthwhile education in the world is to teach somebody how to turn 20.00 into 25.00 without dying of a heart attack and them letting them on the trading floor. Too bad that game needs suckers to survice. Or Chinese people who think that 34.00 a week is fu*king Bill Gates money.
 
2011-06-06 04:02:25 AM  

relcec: you have to say that you can probably have a decent life if you bust your ass. you people are such f*cking babies. your life sucks because you didn't try hard. get over it. it will be over soon.


Ah, now I remember why I have you on ignore. Not because you can't make a point, which was perplexing me, but because you're an abrasive asshole. Thanks for clearing up that cognitive dissonance I was having.
 
2011-06-06 04:02:26 AM  

relcec: how many people do you know that have busted there asses their entire lives that are still actually poor that aren't borderline retarded, chemical dependent, or have had some shiat luck along the way that would have probably put anyone down? why don't you answer the question? because you either have to lie, or you have to say that you can probably have a decent life if you bust your ass. you people are such f*cking babies. your life sucks because you didn't try hard. get over it. it will be over soon.


I refer you to the article this thread is about.

But it's nice to see you can construct a well reasoned argument.

[youmad.jpg]
 
2011-06-06 04:05:18 AM  

Baryogenesis: relcec: Britney Spear's Speculum: CayceP: It's close, but more people consider themselves pro-choice, according to Gallup: pro-life declining by 2% (new window)

I wonder what the specific circumstances are? If they mean illegal except in cases of rape/incest then that's total hypocrisy. Since the anti-choice brigade equates abortion with murder, why does rape and incest get a pass? It's still a "human," right?

So if exceptions should be made for rape and incest then they should support the murder the born children that are the product of rape/incest.

for a supposedly smart guy you sure fark around with a lot of derp. How do you get into med school without understanding what total hypocrisy means? what school do you go to?

The argument goes like this.

A fetus is the same as a person and killing a person is murder. If you make an exception for killing a fetus when it is the product of rape or incest then the exception also applies to the child after it is born because you've already called a fetus and a person equivalent.

If you're comfortable making a distinction between a fetus and person in the case of rape and incest then it's reasonable to make other distinctions as well.


I was wondering why he doesn't understand what hypocrisy means. can you explain that?
also when opinion polls make people choose between pro choice and pro life, you can end up in some weird places. people that might describe themselves as prolife when they are forced to choose between one of the labels do not all necessarily believe life begins at conception. you people are making a lot of presumptions, and that can be stupid. there can be morality without religion.
 
2011-06-06 04:06:51 AM  
Minimum wage is for UNSKILLED labor - flipping burgers, digging ditches, stocking shelves. That kind of work does NOT deserve higher wages because any farking idiot can do it, from teenagers, to the 2-digit-IQ crowd, to skilled workers who are between decent jobs. There is never any shortage of warm bodies to fill those positions, so the market has decreed that they don't pay shiat.

Tired of operating a shovel for minimum wage? Get out of the ditch and persuade someone to show you how to run the backhoe instead. You just doubled your wages. Still not enough for you? Get someone to show you how to read the blueprints and head up the crew. BAM, there's another raise. Want even more? Well, now you have to actually get a real education so you can be the guy who designs the stuff on the the blueprints. See how that works? The more skills you have, the more you get paid.

The people whining about minimum wage not being a "living wage" can go suck a dick. If that's all your earning, you don't get to act like you're middle class. Your income dictates your lifestyle, not your desires. You don't get to drink. You don't get to smoke. You don't get to eat in restaurants several times a week. You don't get to buy a new car. You don't get to buy a 60 inch TV and drop half your paycheck on video games and Blu-ray movies.

Most importantly, you don't get to live in a house by yourself. There isn't a city in this entire country that doesn't have hundreds of "roommate wanted" ads running on CL or the local Nickel rag. Shack up with 2 or 3 other people and your individual expenses drop like a rock. Maybe one of them can look after your crotchfruit so you don't have to pay full price for child care. Maybe one of them has a car and will take you to work if you chip in for gas so you don't have to shoulder the entire expense of maintaining your own vehicle. Best of all, maybe one of them knows somebody who knows about a job opening somewhere for better wages.

It wasn't that many generations ago that hardly anyone lived on their own or got married/had kids until AFTER they locked down a good job and had been there a couple of years. Somehow the American Dream changed from "Work hard so your kids can have a better life than you" to "Every knuckle-dragging retard who dropped out of high school and started reproducing indiscriminately should be given a car, a house, an X-box, and a TV the size of a billboard without requiring them to have any skills whatsoever"
 
2011-06-06 04:07:50 AM  

bunner: What it would do would allow people who have no access to any sort of via investment capital to pay their bills,


I'm suggesting that the labor market may not be the ultimate solution to the problem -- there are other ways to transfer capital. If you support 4 children and are a single parent it's probably more efficient just to transfer capital to you directly via taxes/etc. than to subsidize the minimum wage.

I know that's not consistent with current political thinking from either major party, but it seems more economically efficient to me than just assuming that all laborers are in the worst-case scenario and setting the minimum wage to that level.

Also, finding ways to prevent single parents from supporting 4 children, and/or reducing the cost of child care are also good ideas, neither of which are related to increasing the minimum wage.
 
2011-06-06 04:08:23 AM  

profplump: some work isn't worth "minimum wage".


The minimum wage is the bottom threshold past which no human should do a job. Some will, out of desperation. But automation and socialization should drive those jobs out of the realm of those which humans should have to submit to.

bunner: And here I sit, unable to affect change, and tomorrow I go to my job. And tomorrow I get to tell the girl that called me yesterday, begging for help, that my organization has nothing for her; that her mother turning her out is not our problem, and I'll give her a list of local organizations that just may help her with her plight. May, or may not. And that's the absolute best I can do. And tomorrow, I'll probably drink myself to sleep, so that I can pretend that the good we do far outweighs the good we fail to do, and my only comfort is that I work for an organization that pays my bills instead of demanding that I volunteer all my time. But working for next to nothing, it's all I can do.
 
2011-06-06 04:11:15 AM  
soundguy: It wasn't that many generations ago that hardly anyone lived on their own or got married/had kids until AFTER they locked down a good job and had been there a couple of years. Somehow the American Dream changed from "Work hard so your kids can have a better life than you" to "Every knuckle-dragging retard who dropped out of high school and started reproducing indiscriminately should be given a car, a house, an X-box, and a TV the size of a billboard without requiring them to have any skills whatsoever"

Thank for contributing absolutely nothing worthwhile to the topic at hand. Your contribution is duly noted.
 
2011-06-06 04:11:34 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: The minimum wage is the bottom threshold past which no human should do a job. Some will, out of desperation. But automation and socialization should drive those jobs out of the realm of those which humans should have to submit to.


That's a great idea, in theory, but it assumes that all humans have the same threshold for a willingness to do labor. Someone desperate for food does not have the same threshold as someone who wants another $20 to buy a new video game. Setting the threshold at the higher level means the lower level cannot exist, even if everyone at the higher level was already employed.
 
2011-06-06 04:11:54 AM  

soundguy: See how that works? The more skills you have, the more you get paid.


Appalachia is the real world.

Sadly, that is not.

There is a direct connection between your quality of life and who you blow and who your mommy and daddy know.

Ignoring that, sadly, does not make it irrelevant or not a fact.
 
2011-06-06 04:12:56 AM  

WhyteRaven74: relcec: how many people do you know that have busted there asses their entire lives that are still actually poor that aren't borderline retarded, chemical dependent, or have had some shiat luck along the way that would have probably put anyone down?

I've met quite a few people like that. As for those afflicted by some bad luck, there's next to think offered to right things to get them past whatever bad luck has thrown their way.


you personally know people that from a young age worked their asses off in school, and at every job they ever had. that have never had chemical dependency issues, never had bad luck, and are not stupid (or have a learning disability), yet still are actually POOR. you know people that fulfill all these requirements and make 15k a year r less and are not just going through a rough patch maybe? they are destitute and have always been this way?
 
2011-06-06 04:14:10 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: bunner: And here I sit, unable to affect change, and tomorrow I go to my job. And tomorrow I get to tell the girl that called me yesterday, begging for help, that my organization has nothing for her; that her mother turning her out is not our problem, and I'll give her a list of local organizations that just may help her with her plight. May, or may not. And that's the absolute best I can do. And tomorrow, I'll probably drink myself to sleep, so that I can pretend that the good we do far outweighs the good we fail to do, and my only comfort is that I work for an organization that pays my bills instead of demanding that I volunteer all my time. But working for next to nothing, it's all I can do.


yeah.... : (

*sigh*
 
2011-06-06 04:14:57 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: The minimum wage is the bottom threshold past which no human should do a job. Some will, out of desperation. But automation and socialization should drive those jobs out of the realm of those which humans should have to submit to.


Also, I agree, we should get all humans out of menial jobs AND pay all people enough to support themselves/their family. I just don't think setting a minimum wage makes that happen in any efficient/effective way.
 
2011-06-06 04:16:21 AM  
relcec: yet still are actually POOR.

Yeah I've come across such people. Also not all were always this way. And it doesn't always have to do with luck in any definable sense. You would do well for yourself to go out into the world and actually talk to different people and see what goes on. And realize that for a lot of people there is no help, there is nowhere to turn and then they get people talking about how they deserve it and how they've failed.
 
2011-06-06 04:18:10 AM  

profplump: it assumes that all humans have the same threshold for a willingness to do labor


No, it assumes that we value human life at an equal level, and that we as a society are past the point where we'll exploit the vulnerable for our own benefit. Those who are desperate are those who most need those protections which we engender.
 
2011-06-06 04:18:17 AM  
I don't believe it. the percentage of the population that actually busts their ass their whole life has got to be south of 20%. I don't believe you happen to know a bunch of people that are destitute, that are among the hardest workers in America and have always been that way, and that haven't had some extraordinarily bad luck along the way.
 
2011-06-06 04:18:35 AM  
the best part about those who mock the rich? They will never do more than mock.
 
2011-06-06 04:19:06 AM  
relcec: they are destitute and have always been this way

Read what Occam's Chainsaw posted just a minute ago. All the wishing everyone who is poor is stupid or an addict doesn't change what reality is and you seem completely uninterested in that reality so long as you can keep thinking that no one who isn't stupid or an addict isn't poor or doesn't stay poor. What's more you seem to think it's ok for the dumb and addicted to remain poor as well.
 
2011-06-06 04:19:45 AM  

profplump: Also, I agree, we should get all humans out of menial jobs AND pay all people enough to support themselves/their family. I just don't think setting a minimum wage makes that happen in any efficient/effective way.


News flash. Shoving billions in corporate welfare up the asses of fat, rich old men who spend it all on Chinese whores doesn't, either. This just in, neither abject poverty nor vomitous greed serve that from whence comes their sustenance.
 
2011-06-06 04:20:23 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: No, it assumes that we value human life at an equal level, and that we as a society are past the point where we'll exploit the vulnerable for our own benefit.


No, it assumes a 12-year-old who wants a new video game should get the same wage as a 30-year-old trying to feed his children. Those two people do not deserve the same pay in your developed society, and we shouldn't require society to pay the already-fed, already-housed, already-clothed 12-year-old the same amount.
 
2011-06-06 04:21:22 AM  
relcec: . the percentage of the population that actually busts their ass their whole life has got to be south of 20%

And funny enough among those who earn the most you wouldn't find many in that 20%. Except you think far too little of your fellow Americans. Which is kind of the problem. Well, no, it's your problem.

Yogimus: the best part about those who mock the rich? They will never do more than mock.

Someone named Johnny Rotten would like a word with you.
 
2011-06-06 04:21:39 AM  

bunner: News flash. Shoving billions in corporate welfare up the asses of fat, rich old men who spend it all on Chinese whores doesn't, either.


I didn't say corporate welfare was the answer. I don't even know that I have a better solution than raising the minimum wage. I'm just saying the minimum wage isn't a good solution the underlying problem.
 
2011-06-06 04:23:09 AM  

profplump: we shouldn't require society to pay the already-fed, already-housed, already-clothed 12-year-old the same amount.


And how do we concretely prevent the 12-year-old standard from being applied to the 30-year-old, in a world where the user will do anything to exploit the used?
 
2011-06-06 04:24:41 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: And how do we concretely prevent the 12-year-old standard from being applied to the 30-year-old, in a world where the user will do anything to exploit the used?


That's why I'm suggesting that the labor market is not the end-all, be-all solution to the problem. I don't think the labor market alone can solve the problem. That's why I don't think a minimum wage is a good plan.
 
2011-06-06 04:25:33 AM  

Weaver95: what I don't get is how someone making less than $250,000 a year can vote Republican. Even the Jesus option doesn't explain it - Jesus was pretty clear on the whole 'help the poor' bit, which our corporate overlords don't do.


I would strongly recommend reading Deer Hunting with Jesus - it's a decent read and explains why my better half won't move back to the US after a few years of living in a pinko-communist-liberal nation like Norway.
 
2011-06-06 04:25:42 AM  

profplump: Occam's Chainsaw: No, it assumes that we value human life at an equal level, and that we as a society are past the point where we'll exploit the vulnerable for our own benefit.

No, it assumes a 12-year-old who wants a new video game should get the same wage as a 30-year-old trying to feed his children. Those two people do not deserve the same pay in your developed society, and we shouldn't require society to pay the already-fed, already-housed, already-clothed 12-year-old the same amount.


I agree with that but don't we already allow businesses to pay 16 yr olds less than 18 yr olds.

/I honestly don't recall
 
2011-06-06 04:26:00 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: profplump: some work isn't worth "minimum wage".

The minimum wage is the bottom threshold past which no human should do a job. Some will, out of desperation. But automation and socialization should drive those jobs out of the realm of those which humans should have to submit to.


That's absolutely false. If that were the case, the minimum wage should have been steadily increasing (to counter inflation). And watch it with the loaded language; people don't submit to employment, they search for it and they settle for it, but they aren't usually hired at gunpoint.

I'm no bootstrapper, but it's pretty clear that an hour of burger flipping isn't inherently deserving of $7 in pay. Instead, the wage should be whatever the guy who'll do it for the least amount of money (and do a competent job) accepts. You can argue that there should be a floor on the allowable wage, but it's going to cause unemployment.

It would be more equitable to reduce cost of living expenses (effectively increasing the income of people earning minimum wage) such as healthcare, childcare, transportation, etc.
 
2011-06-06 04:28:29 AM  

Fail in Human Form: I agree with that but don't we already allow businesses to pay 16 yr olds less than 18 yr olds.


We do, but my point isn't related to age -- from a humanitarian standpoint shouldn't we pay more to a 16-year-old trying to support his child than a 19-year-old living with his parents?

My whole point is a minimum wage doesn't solve the problem, and might, in fact, make it worse.
 
2011-06-06 04:28:57 AM  
Aschlafly: but it's going to cause unemployment.

Actually there's no proof of that. Indeed the opposite appears to be true. A bunch of years back New Jersey raised it's min wage to be more than Pennsylvania. People said Jersey would lose jobs at the bottom of the pay scale. Turns out that not only weren't jobs lost, new jobs were created. Granted at the bottom of the pay scale, but all the same, increasing the minimum wage had a positive, not negative, effect on employment.
 
2011-06-06 04:29:49 AM  
Unamerican socialist educations seem to be just fine for the wealth of american companies who have taken jobs overseas, or need to import workers to the states. I noticed dictatorships don't faze said company owners, when it comes to deciding where to built new plants.
 
2011-06-06 04:30:46 AM  

WhyteRaven74: relcec: yet still are actually POOR.

Yeah I've come across such people. Also not all were always this way. And it doesn't always have to do with luck in any definable sense. You would do well for yourself to go out into the world and actually talk to different people and see what goes on. And realize that for a lot of people there is no help, there is nowhere to turn and then they get people talking about how they deserve it and how they've failed.


I know people that have picked themselves up. I guess you only know people that sink to the bottom.
you people are arguing that life is unfair, that you have no control over it. that is fundamentally what you are always tossing around in here. that there is no point even trying. I want the government to provide more services and I'm gonna advocate for more at every opportunity I can, but I'm tired of hearing this shiat specifically it. I'm really sick of your bellyaching. 99.9% of life is what you make of it. you only have this one shot and you will not get another. nothing is fated. go on thinking it sucks and you are doomed no matter what you do and even if you try as hard as you possibly can you are f*cked because of someone else. go on wallowing in your self pitty with these fools. I really feel bad for you all.
 
2011-06-06 04:30:49 AM  

Aschlafly: Occam's Chainsaw: profplump: some work isn't worth "minimum wage".

The minimum wage is the bottom threshold past which no human should do a job. Some will, out of desperation. But automation and socialization should drive those jobs out of the realm of those which humans should have to submit to.

That's absolutely false. If that were the case, the minimum wage should have been steadily increasing (to counter inflation). And watch it with the loaded language; people don't submit to employment, they search for it and they settle for it, but they aren't usually hired at gunpoint.

I'm no bootstrapper, but it's pretty clear that an hour of burger flipping isn't inherently deserving of $7 in pay. Instead, the wage should be whatever the guy who'll do it for the least amount of money (and do a competent job) accepts. You can argue that there should be a floor on the allowable wage, but it's going to cause unemployment.

It would be more equitable to reduce cost of living expenses (effectively increasing the income of people earning minimum wage) such as healthcare, childcare, transportation, etc.


So then you support paying people $1/hour and have them living under a bridge in tent cities. That's where your plan ends up.
 
2011-06-06 04:33:05 AM  
profplump: My whole point is a minimum wage doesn't solve the problem, and might, in fact, make it worse.

You can fix a lot of the problem making sure no one who works 40 hours a week ends up without a proper roof over their head, a suitable amount of food and some other necessities. Germany, Italy, England, France etc figured this out long ago. Hell in Sweden no one even had to do anything really because making sure people have enough is just a part of their culture. The who have plenty don't see it as their goal to retain as much as they can if it means someone might, not will but just might, go without enough. And this doesn't mean they'd be starving or otherwise destitute, or even necessarily close to it, they just simply wouldn't have enough.
 
2011-06-06 04:33:33 AM  

relcec: some extraordinarily bad luck along the way.


Redlining-> low property values-> no collateral for loans-> difficulty financing education/investment-> lower inherited wealth (both capital and education)-> lower earnings-> lower property values and so on and so on.

Read a little, shiathead.
 
2011-06-06 04:35:27 AM  

missiv: Unamerican socialist educations seem to be just fine for the wealth of american companies who have taken jobs overseas, or need to import workers to the states. I noticed dictatorships don't faze said company owners, when it comes to deciding where to built new plants.


They never have. Historically it's better for business.
 
2011-06-06 04:36:37 AM  
Aschlafly: Read a little, shiathead.

Also if you own your own residence you're farked as far as any assistance goes. Cruel irony is a great many among the poorest of the poor in places like Appalachia or the deep south is, they own their homes and because of that, no matter how poor they actually are, they can't get any assistance.
 
2011-06-06 04:37:51 AM  

WhyteRaven74: You can fix a lot of the problem making sure no one who works 40 hours a week ends up without a proper roof over their head, a suitable amount of food and some other necessities.


I'm not saying we shouldn't construct a society where someone working full-time cannot live independently. I'm just saying that if/when you assume all work is sustenance work you immediately remove the market for sub-sustiance work, even for workers that are legitimately in the sub-sustiance market (i.e. that are supported outside their own labor).

I'm not saying that we should let people working 40 hours/week starve to death, I'm just saying that setting a minimum wage is not an economically efficient way to ensure that everyone eats/has housing/etc. And if you actually look at the economies of Germany or the UK you'll see they don't rely on an minimum wage to achieve that outcome either.
 
2011-06-06 04:39:46 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Aschlafly: Occam's Chainsaw: profplump: some work isn't worth "minimum wage".

The minimum wage is the bottom threshold past which no human should do a job. Some will, out of desperation. But automation and socialization should drive those jobs out of the realm of those which humans should have to submit to.

That's absolutely false. If that were the case, the minimum wage should have been steadily increasing (to counter inflation). And watch it with the loaded language; people don't submit to employment, they search for it and they settle for it, but they aren't usually hired at gunpoint.

I'm no bootstrapper, but it's pretty clear that an hour of burger flipping isn't inherently deserving of $7 in pay. Instead, the wage should be whatever the guy who'll do it for the least amount of money (and do a competent job) accepts. You can argue that there should be a floor on the allowable wage, but it's going to cause unemployment.

It would be more equitable to reduce cost of living expenses (effectively increasing the income of people earning minimum wage) such as healthcare, childcare, transportation, etc.

So then you support paying people $1/hour and have them living under a bridge in tent cities. That's where your plan ends up.


you think anyone's going to work for a dollar an hour? I know the job market is bad, but it's not so bad that people are going to accept a wage that low.

But that's missing the point: the actual dollar figure isn't that important, it's how that relates to a person's costs. Right now, even if you raised the federal min. wage to California levels, people are still going to be in dire straits because they can't afford health care and childcare and rent. If you subsidize those things, even if they're only earning 4 dollars an hour, they'd be better off than they are now.
 
2011-06-06 04:42:13 AM  

Fail in Human Form: have them living under a bridge in tent cities.


You must have some huge bridges up your own ass if you can fit a whole tent city under them.

/Sorry I missed that the first time
 
2011-06-06 04:42:42 AM  

Aschlafly: Fail in Human Form: Aschlafly: Occam's Chainsaw: profplump: some work isn't worth "minimum wage".

The minimum wage is the bottom threshold past which no human should do a job. Some will, out of desperation. But automation and socialization should drive those jobs out of the realm of those which humans should have to submit to.

That's absolutely false. If that were the case, the minimum wage should have been steadily increasing (to counter inflation). And watch it with the loaded language; people don't submit to employment, they search for it and they settle for it, but they aren't usually hired at gunpoint.

I'm no bootstrapper, but it's pretty clear that an hour of burger flipping isn't inherently deserving of $7 in pay. Instead, the wage should be whatever the guy who'll do it for the least amount of money (and do a competent job) accepts. You can argue that there should be a floor on the allowable wage, but it's going to cause unemployment.

It would be more equitable to reduce cost of living expenses (effectively increasing the income of people earning minimum wage) such as healthcare, childcare, transportation, etc.

So then you support paying people $1/hour and have them living under a bridge in tent cities. That's where your plan ends up.

you think anyone's going to work for a dollar an hour? I know the job market is bad, but it's not so bad that people are going to accept a wage that low.

But that's missing the point: the actual dollar figure isn't that important, it's how that relates to a person's costs. Right now, even if you raised the federal min. wage to California levels, people are still going to be in dire straits because they can't afford health care and childcare and rent. If you subsidize those things, even if they're only earning 4 dollars an hour, they'd be better off than they are now.


Under your system, I guarantee it. There's always someone more desperate and the cost of living would never drop low enough to compensate for it. That's not a system I would ever want to see implemented.
 
2011-06-06 04:43:35 AM  

relcec: WhyteRaven74: relcec: yet still are actually POOR.

Yeah I've come across such people. Also not all were always this way. And it doesn't always have to do with luck in any definable sense. You would do well for yourself to go out into the world and actually talk to different people and see what goes on. And realize that for a lot of people there is no help, there is nowhere to turn and then they get people talking about how they deserve it and how they've failed.

I know people that have picked themselves up. I guess you only know people that sink to the bottom.
you people are arguing that life is unfair, that you have no control over it. that is fundamentally what you are always tossing around in here. that there is no point even trying. I want the government to provide more services and I'm gonna advocate for more at every opportunity I can, but I'm tired of hearing this shiat specifically it. I'm really sick of your bellyaching. 99.9% of life is what you make of it. you only have this one shot and you will not get another. nothing is fated. go on thinking it sucks and you are doomed no matter what you do and even if you try as hard as you possibly can you are f*cked because of someone else. go on wallowing in your self pitty with these fools. I really feel bad for you all.


Nice strawman. It must be nice to live in your black and white world. Is there even a point in telling you that there's a difference between "hard work doesn't always translate to success" and "there's no point in even trying"? You're just going to take it to one extreme or the other.
 
2011-06-06 04:43:54 AM  

CayceP: They never have. Historically it's better for business.


There will never be useful dialogue between the greedy and the ill used until we stop using "business" and a euphemism for "greed" "theft" or "legislative manipulation. That blanket you're trying to throw over the eviscerated and poverty stricken isn't wide enough, and never will be, mister corporate whore man.
 
2011-06-06 04:45:34 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Also if you own your own residence you're farked as far as any assistance goes. Cruel irony is a great many among the poorest of the poor in places like Appalachia or the deep south is, they own their homes and because of that, no matter how poor they actually are, they can't get any assistance.


Sure they can.

Just sell it and the land to the nearest vulture.

Scads of assistance!

Rent money! Revenue! Git yerself an SUV and some sammiches! Sign here.
 
2011-06-06 04:46:50 AM  
profplump: And if you actually look at the economies of Germany or the UK you'll see they don't rely on an minimum wage to achieve that outcome either.

True enough
 
2011-06-06 04:46:55 AM  

Baryogenesis:
Nice strawman. It must be nice to live in your black and white world. Is there even a point in telling you that there's a difference between "hard work doesn't always translate to success" and "there's no point in even trying"? You're just going to take it to one extreme or the other.


He's a product of magical thinking. There's no explaining how the real world functions to a person who thinks Appalachia isn't.
 
2011-06-06 04:48:21 AM  

bunner: CayceP: They never have. Historically it's better for business.

There will never be useful dialogue between the greedy and the ill used until we stop using "business" and a euphemism for "greed" "theft" or "legislative manipulation. That blanket you're trying to throw over the eviscerated and poverty stricken isn't wide enough, and never will be, mister corporate whore man.


But but but...business...capitalism...lily white and pure...

/puke
 
2011-06-06 04:49:12 AM  

relcec: I don't believe it. the percentage of the population that actually busts their ass their whole life has got to be south of 20%. I don't believe you happen to know a bunch of people that are destitute, that are among the hardest workers in America and have always been that way, and that haven't had some extraordinarily bad luck along the way.


Define busting your ass, then defend why human beings, with all our technology, ought to be working ten times harder than a hunter-gatherer.

I mean what are you expecting of a teenager growing up in Detroit?
Specifically
 
2011-06-06 04:50:42 AM  

WhyteRaven74: profplump: And if you actually look at the economies of Germany or the UK you'll see they don't rely on an minimum wage to achieve that outcome either.

True enough


They also don't rely on a "system" wherein the CEO's of their corporations export all the work to other countries and then take the 700% profit upticks to buy small countries and use the locals for toilets and grope little boys while they feed them martini enemas.

Knowhamsayin?

usul.netView Full Size


Just sayin'
 
2011-06-06 04:51:29 AM  
Hey guys, lets keep the minimum wage down to seven bucks an hour so as to breed desperation and then make sure everyone has access to guns. Its your second amendment right to shoot somebody in the face and take their stuff . America - fark Yeah!
 
2011-06-06 04:53:17 AM  
Fail in Human Form:
Under your system, I guarantee it. There's always someone more desperate and the cost of living would never drop low enough to compensate for it. That's not a system I would ever want to see implemented.


Sweden doesn't seem to have a lot of that. Italy, Switzerland, Denmark also don't have national minimum wages, and none of those countries have tent cities under giant bridges. What they do have is collective bargaining agreements about wages by industry, combined with social safety nets like the one I mentioned.
 
2011-06-06 04:54:47 AM  

Aschlafly: Fail in Human Form:
Under your system, I guarantee it. There's always someone more desperate and the cost of living would never drop low enough to compensate for it. That's not a system I would ever want to see implemented.

Sweden doesn't seem to have a lot of that. Italy, Switzerland, Denmark also don't have national minimum wages, and none of those countries have tent cities under giant bridges. What they do have is collective bargaining agreements about wages by industry, combined with social safety nets like the one I mentioned.


anh-usa.orgView Full Size
 
2011-06-06 04:59:06 AM  
Comparing a comparison of policy in the US and Europe to "apples to oranges" is... like comparing apples and oranges, jackass.

Maybe there's a set of factors that really do make the much more successful Euro-style unworkable in the US, but unless you want to point them out, put away your pictures.
 
2011-06-06 05:04:44 AM  
Why should I pay for welfare sluts and their brats? The woman in the article, like way too many women in Detroit and some nearby cities, should not have spread her legs for unreliable males who come and then go in the night. And failing that, she should have stopped after the first bastard popped out but instead she goes and has another with no supporting baby daddy in sight.

Raising the minimum wage will make things worse, just like increasing handouts.

Face the truth, every single welfare and education program has failed. Every one of them! By any indicator: illegitimacy, crime, dependence, and multi-generational mooching -- all the Great Society programs have failed. And they have failed worst in the urban blighted areas where the recipients are many but where the decent people are few, having fled long ago taking their money and jobs with them.

None of the existing programs work, and keeping them in place expecting different results is insane. What to do?

1) Sterilization for all welfare recipients and their kids, or
2) Restitution of slavery, or
3) Soylent Green

You pick.
 
2011-06-06 05:05:26 AM  
I need a raise so I can buy a cool hat and chair like this guy.
img192.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2011-06-06 05:06:20 AM  
Fist of, suck a wet fart out of my ass you cheap, insulting, posturing, mouthy c*nt.

So, let's move on.

The apples and oranges come by way of the history of our respective economies and the social norms they produced. Sweden is a socialist country with regulated capitalist engine and that, pretty much, works and is about the only thing that does. Ours is founded on avarice, manipulation and robber barons the fact that - for a brief time - they actually needed strong backs and people who were good at math to turn our resources into things that would line their pockets and since dead people can't run a milling machine, they paid them and nice little stacked up houses from the Sears catalogue for them to live in. The divergent histories of the two prevents obvious solutions and socioeconomic constructs being implemented here outside of the academic construct you were positing. and academic constructs don't get sh* t done.

Now you go and you f*ck yourself until you can get some manners. Bye.
 
2011-06-06 05:08:42 AM  

SystemFault: Why should I pay for welfare sluts and their brats? The woman in the article, like way too many women in Detroit and some nearby cities, should not have spread her legs for unreliable males who come and then go in the night. And failing that, she should have stopped after the first bastard popped out but instead she goes and has another with no supporting baby daddy in sight.


Do you not understand what twins are?
 
2011-06-06 05:09:03 AM  
Fail in Human Form: There's always someone more desperate and the cost of living would never drop low enough to compensate for it.

Make sure anyone who works full time has their needs met and there are no more desperate people.

SystemFault: Face the truth, every single welfare and education program has failed.

They haven't. Also what's it like to be a complete farking moron with no consideration of those around them?
 
2011-06-06 05:13:02 AM  

WhyteRaven74: soundguy: It wasn't that many generations ago that hardly anyone lived on their own or got married/had kids until AFTER they locked down a good job and had been there a couple of years. Somehow the American Dream changed from "Work hard so your kids can have a better life than you" to "Every knuckle-dragging retard who dropped out of high school and started reproducing indiscriminately should be given a car, a house, an X-box, and a TV the size of a billboard without requiring them to have any skills whatsoever"

Thank for contributing absolutely nothing worthwhile to the topic at hand. Your contribution is duly noted.


------

You're welcome. Never let it be said that I don't do the absolute least I can do.
 
2011-06-06 05:15:58 AM  
You don't give people a basic wage to enjoy their lives, you do it so they let you enjoy yours.

You don't feed the poor with welfare because they are hungry, you do it so they don't kill your wife and family.
 
2011-06-06 05:26:27 AM  

zzrhardy: You don't give people a basic wage to enjoy their lives, you do it so they let you enjoy yours.

You don't feed the poor with welfare because they are hungry, you do it so they don't kill your wife and family.


seahawknationblog.com