"Minimum Wage Jobs aren't careers"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Vegosiux:

Honestly, when I take over the world, I will mandate that whoever gets insulted on the basis of what they do for a living, immediately switches jobs with whoever insulted them - provided the insulted party wants to switch.

Honestly I think the guys frying my sliced potatoes couldn't do worse than the guys that brought down Wallstreet (The ones who know about the Real World know they contributed much more to ruining the economy than the ones recieving slave-like wages at the fast food joint).

In fact, by not doing anyhting they would actually be doing much better. And by bankrupting themselves they would still be doing better. They literally have to know stuff about economics and the stock market to screw up as badly as the ones who regularily speaks against having a minimum wage, and insult the people on minimum wage.

The Stock Market in Denmark does not even get taxed. So they go around compromising the economy every day, playing gambles with our money and banks and in return has to contribute abselutely-diddely-nothing to soceity.

And with the new speculation in Food and Water they even cause increasing costs of living for those unfortunate on the buttom.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Vausch:
snip

The reason it can't be a career? The value of the individual worker is nearly zero. Because virtually anybody can do this work. It's not skilled labor. The answer is really simple. Basic economics.

Ritualist:

Bull shit bro. Straight up bull shit.
I'm on food stamps. I have enough money to either eat unheathily (which includes copious amounts of ramen) for the entirety of the month, or I can eat healthily, but very light, for 2 and a half weeks. I can stretch it to three weeks if it's one extremely light meal per day.
Bull effing shit.
And that's just me. FAMILIES are on food stamps, and the maximum benefits you can get that way is very low.

The food stamp program's official name is SNAP. Look up what the S stands for and get back to me.

I do not think that has anything to do with the crappy pay. MANY skilled jobs have the same crappy pay.
For example:
Even if you have a masters degree, most people cannot do this:
http://www.ehow.com/about_6297022_ocean-lifeguard-training.html
What dis they pay us? As of 2007, senior lifeguards patrolling Galveston Beach in Texas received $11.10 per hour, while those at level 1, 2 or 3 were paid between $9.54 and $10.50, according to the United States Lifesaving Association.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8692755_salary-oceancertified-lifeguard.html#ixzz2iiLXPyaP
Hell Baylor Dallas only paid my friend $8.50 an hour to RESET BONES and after she graduated. She quit that job and went to work at a daycare because she was paid more there than using her degree.
Benefits in Texas are disgustingly low BTW. You make $5,000 a year, too bad we can't help you with medical costs. Turn 6 years old? Sorry you can't be covered anymore. It is sick really.

Lil devils x:
snip

And? Your point? The money has to come from somewhere. The employers can't just spin trash into gold and pension plans.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Lil devils x:
snip

And? Your point? The money has to come from somewhere. The employers can't just spin trash into gold and pension plans.

Yet we have plenty of billionaires here to help...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires
Kind of sick isn't it? Oh but the person making $5,000 a year can afford to pay for their 6 year olds medical bills right? Cut the benefits! Lets starve them out!

farson135:

Apparently not since most people live perfectly fine on a minimum wage.

That statement is somewhat worthless in a discussion about what "living perfectly fine" is supposed to mean.

farson135:

More due to poor choices in diet. Plenty of good food available. People just choose to eat crap. Just like our British ancestors taught us. Once again, differences in culture. In Anglo-Saxon nations, food is more utilitarian and is designed for survival. Living in Texas means that I get access to real Mexican food. The difference is striking. Plus our American culture emphasizes quantity over quality. I can still remember de Tocqueville commenting on the sheer size of American meals.

Other people here have disagreed with you, and that doesn't add up to my own experience in the US (organic food wasn't exactly easy to come by). Also, where do people get educated about what is a healthy diet, which is a big problem in low-income families not only in the US.

farson135:

And you still had something to build on. You cannot deny the basic fact that your country has far more advantages historically than the US.

What are "historical advantages"? The real World is not Age of Empires where you just get constantly better. There was a reason the europeans spend so much time and effort colonizing places like the Americas. The US had plenty of natural resources and was able to expand constantly. And it's not like Europe's cultural advancements weren't exported to the US via the english and french governance.

farson135:

France has bridges and roads that are older than my country. Your infrastructure was built up over the past 2,000 years. The price of that infrastructure has been spread out over that entire time period. It is amazing that the US has as much as it does.

Which still doesn't give the US any justification to treat it's inhabitants worse today.

farson135:

You want to live in a world without risk. Once again, it is hard for me to sympathize with you not being able to have internet.

And it's hard for us to sympathize with a position that wants to exclude those who don't make much money from modern amenties like telephones, TV and Internet. Why not add running water to that list? I mean you can live just fine without running water, there is no need for such "modern" luxuries if you don't make enough money.

The bottom line is: I (and I guess others) think that there is a minimum level of "luxuries" that is required to be treated as a full "human being". If most people have internet and talk about funny cat videos, and you do not and get excluded from that, that makes you a lesser being to some extent. Granted the example is exaggerated, but that is the principle.

We live in very rich countries. Why shouldn't everyone have a palace, to draw from an old social warcry?

Lil devils x:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Lil devils x:
snip

And? Your point? The money has to come from somewhere. The employers can't just spin trash into gold and pension plans.

Yet we have plenty of billionaires here to help...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires
Kind of sick isn't it? Oh but the person making $5,000 a year can afford to pay for their 6 year olds medical bills right? Cut the benefits! Lets starve them out!

You really don't understand how capitalism works. You're describing class warfare and communism.

And there's nothing sick about the billionaires. Outside of those who inherited their wealth (a very small percentage of the billionaires,) those guys and gals worked their damn asses off to get to that level. And they entered the right fields. No one's gettin' rich flippin' burgers.

Also, your argument is completely based on emotion and populism.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Lil devils x:

Big_Willie_Styles:

And? Your point? The money has to come from somewhere. The employers can't just spin trash into gold and pension plans.

Yet we have plenty of billionaires here to help...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires
Kind of sick isn't it? Oh but the person making $5,000 a year can afford to pay for their 6 year olds medical bills right? Cut the benefits! Lets starve them out!

You really don't understand how capitalism works. You're describing class warfare and communism.

And there's nothing sick about the billionaires. Outside of those who inherited their wealth (a very small percentage of the billionaires,) those guys and gals worked their damn asses off to get to that level. And they entered the right fields. No one's gettin' rich flippin' burgers.

Also, your argument is completely based on emotion and populism.

"class warfare" was already declared when someone came up with the bright idea of kickin' back and enslaving others to do their work for them. What we have now is "economic slavery" in a plutocracy. One so cemented in place currently they have the " could be poor tomorrow" convinced they actually have a chance in hell of making it if they make a measly $250,000 a year. LMAO!
That isn't even wealthy, the wealthy have so many stacks they cannot even be listed on the chart. Their stacks take up what 2 or three charts while the next closest to them is a tiny bump. They convinced the tiny bump they are wealthy and then laugh at them.
Everything is going to be patented, there is no way competition can exist when you patent everything in existence. Capitalism is competition, what competition?

Lil devils x:
"class warfare" was already declared when someone came up with the bright idea of kickin' back and enslaving others to do their work for them. What we have now is "economic slavery" in a plutocracy. One so cemented in place currently they have the " could be poor tomorrow" convinced they actually have a chance in hell of making it if they make a measly $250,000 a year. LMAO!
That isn't even wealthy, the wealthy have so many stacks they cannot even be listed on the chart. Their stacks take up what 2 or three charts while the next closest to them is a tiny bump. They convinced the tiny bump they are wealthy and then laugh at them.
Everything is going to patented, there is no way competition can exist when you patent everything in existence. Capitalism is competition, what competition?

You sound like the revolutionaries/terrorists Liber8 on the show "Continuum."

"Kickin' back"? Really? Really?!?

You also know that's net worth, right? Not cash on hand? That's wealth measured in stocks, other investments, real estate holdings, etc. not just cash. I imagine Warren Buffet only has a fraction of his wealth in actual cash. He's constantly investing in something new.

Intellectual Property is important to protect. And patents only last 20 years at most (drugs, for instance, have a lower threshold.)

Competition is why fast food workers don't make a "living wage." When anybody can do what they do, they make little. But, also, when the work has a massive supply of applicants but little demand for positions, the wage scale will dip downwards. That's a natural consequence. You as a person are a product like anything else. Employers decide to take on the risk and decide to purchase your skills and work which you do in return for payment at a level commensurate with your skill level and demand for that skill level combined with the supply of people with similar skills (or the same skills.)

This really is very basic economics.

Big_Willie_Styles:

You sound like the revolutionaries/terrorists Liber8 on the show "Continuum."

I'm sorry, did you just call her a terrorist in a very roundabout way?

You, uh, may want to amend that. Really.

You as a person are a product like anything else.

This one caught my attention though. What exactly are you a product of as a person? And mind, I'm setting a very obvious trap here.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Lil devils x:
"class warfare" was already declared when someone came up with the bright idea of kickin' back and enslaving others to do their work for them. What we have now is "economic slavery" in a plutocracy. One so cemented in place currently they have the " could be poor tomorrow" convinced they actually have a chance in hell of making it if they make a measly $250,000 a year. LMAO!
That isn't even wealthy, the wealthy have so many stacks they cannot even be listed on the chart. Their stacks take up what 2 or three charts while the next closest to them is a tiny bump. They convinced the tiny bump they are wealthy and then laugh at them.
Everything is going to patented, there is no way competition can exist when you patent everything in existence. Capitalism is competition, what competition?

You sound like the revolutionaries/terrorists Liber8 on the show "Continuum."

"Kickin' back"? Really? Really?!?

You also know that's net worth, right? Not cash on hand? That's wealth measured in stocks, other investments, real estate holdings, etc. not just cash. I imagine Warren Buffet only has a fraction of his wealth in actual cash. He's constantly investing in something new.

Intellectual Property is important to protect. And patents only last 20 years at most (drugs, for instance, have a lower threshold.)

Competition is why fast food workers don't make a "living wage." When anybody can do what they do, they make little. But, also, when the work has a massive supply of applicants but little demand for positions, the wage scale will dip downwards. That's a natural consequence. You as a person are a product like anything else. Employers decide to take on the risk and decide to purchase your skills and work which you do in return for payment at a level commensurate with your skill level and demand for that skill level combined with the supply of people with similar skills (or the same skills.)

This really is very basic economics.

Hell yea kickin back, I happen to live in the wealthiest per sq ft county in grand the state of Texas. 23 of them live in my area, Hell Jacob's parents were billionaires and they would not even buy his school clothes. They do get to "kick back and chill", and yet what do they pay employees? Do you think they get decent benefits? HAHA! funny stuff there. The problem is the distribution of profit for ones own work. In a good capitalistic system the profit from work should be like this: person who did the most work gets highest paid for that work. MANY business owners who work at their businesses live in that community supporting those communities via taxes, and having a personal investment in making their community a better place to live, the people in those communities work at those businesses being provided jobs and also paying taxes and actively supporting their communities. What we have instead is Massive businesses owned by people who do not live in those communities siphoning the wealth out of those communities and not reinvesting in those communities and running all the competition out of town. Few or no business owners living in those communities, and none being able to afford to pay the employees a decent wage due to the massive business driving them out.

In the end, all you have left are massive businesses with few owners funneling all the wealth and no competition and the communities going to shit because the business owners do not live and work there, and no one there being able to afford to support themselves.

Big_Willie_Styles:

You sound like the revolutionaries/terrorists Liber8 on the show "Continuum."

You do realize that on that show Liber8 are fighting against a corrupt corporate government that has revoked civil rights, uses slave labour in their factories, conducts highly unethical medical experiments and routinely creates artificial food shortages. They are the bad guys on the show because of their monstrous methods and not because of their ideology.

If the US turned into the nightmarish dystopia that is portrayed on that show, I would probably be blowing up buildings myself.

Lil devils x:
Being in Texas myself, I really have to ask what electric company exists here that allows for a $75 a month electric bill without dying from a heat stroke in August? This must have been way back in the day? LOL

Here in Austin we have the cleverly named Austin Energy.

In Houston we use Reliant.

ONLY TXU exists here in Dallas, so you have no other choice and the best electric bill I ever had was around $160, although they averaged around $250-300 most of the time due to how hot it is in a one bedroom apartment in Dallas. Average price in Dallas in august is $361.91, If someone had kids and had to have more bedrooms to air condition, I have no idea how they would be able to pay that.

And I have no idea what you are doing to use up that much energy. As I said, my friend lives in Houston and he pays a little better than $100 for his 3 bedroom apartment.

What about medical and dental care? How do they pay for that?

Most full time jobs offer benefits. Besides, most minimum wage workers are young.

In Austin, the only time I had it easy on rent was when I was in college and had that included in my scholarship funds and grants and received a student discount. If I hadn't had that, there would have been no way I could have lived, and I didn't even work fast food, I was working 3 jobs ( lifeguard, teaching gymnastics, and bartender) EVEN working 3 jobs, I wouldn't have been able to afford to live in Austin.
One bedroom apartments in Austin rent for $915 a month on average and two bedroom apartment rents average $1202. The problem there though was it is EXTREMLY difficult to find available apartments that you could afford

If you live in the expensive parts of Austin. My friend lives in West Campus and he pays $610 (about $700 with utilities) for an efficiency. You can get a lot better rates in Far West Campus.

you were on waiting lists forever, so if you didn't want to end up sleeping in your car, you better have made arrangements well in advance or suck it up and wind up in an apartment you couldn't afford.

Only if you try and get an apartment during the busy season. Try not to look for an apartment in a college town just before the new semester starts. As for right now, if you are still living in Austin I know where you can find a nice efficiency apartment complex that has plenty of empty spaces right now.

Stephen Sossna:
That statement is somewhat worthless in a discussion about what "living perfectly fine" is supposed to mean.

Did you actually follow our discussion? The discussion was about living with a minimum wage. They say no, I say yes.

Other people here have disagreed with you, and that doesn't add up to my own experience in the US (organic food wasn't exactly easy to come by).

Who said anything about organic? I am talking about fulfilling your body's basic dietary requirements.

Also, where do people get educated about what is a healthy diet, which is a big problem in low-income families not only in the US.

Try common sense (in so much as there is such a thing). If you must teach them then use the school system.

What are "historical advantages"?

Wow. Sorry, but that is just too much. Historical advantages is a massive subject so you will just have to deal with a few examples.

Economics- building up an economic system takes time and energy. Building up trade routes requires infrastructure and social interactions. It also requires basic agreements on how such things work otherwise the system breaks down. All of which requires time, which means historical for Europeans looking at it from a 17th Century American (speaking for the American continent's) point of view.

Social- Social interactions that Americans had to deal with were a new frontier because it was a mix of Native and European cultures butting heads and forming a New American culture. Europe had no such problems.

Legal- Simple here, Americans had to start from scratch while Europeans had long standing law codes typically derived from the Romans.

And on.

There was a reason the europeans spend so much time and effort colonizing places like the Americas. The US had plenty of natural resources and was able to expand constantly.

India also had a massive amount of natural resources and an infrastructure to actually utilize it. See how well they are doing?

You may not know this but the settlers of Jamestown almost starved to death because they were too busy looking for gold to plant food, utilization of natural resources requires infrastructure that did not really exist in the Americas for the Europeans (especially after they plowed what was there into the ground).

And it's not like Europe's cultural advancements weren't exported to the US via the english and french governance.

"Advancements". Things that helped us and hurt us. A plantation nobility and slavery certainly helped build up the south, until we burned it all down. One step forward and two steps back.

Which still doesn't give the US any justification to treat it's inhabitants worse today.

So you expect the US to be exactly the same as France. A country that has had 2,000 years to get its act together.

And it's hard for us to sympathize with a position that wants to exclude those who don't make much money from modern amenties like telephones, TV and Internet.

I want to exclude them? Calm the fuck down. I never said that so stop making shit up.

You can live without all of those things and you do not need them to work.

Why not add running water to that list? I mean you can live just fine without running water, there is no need for such "modern" luxuries if you don't make enough money.

Need water to live. Watching the next episode of "The Walking Dead", not needed to live.

The bottom line is: I (and I guess others) think that there is a minimum level of "luxuries" that is required to be treated as a full "human being".

Wow, just wow.

If most people have internet and talk about funny cat videos, and you do not and get excluded from that, that makes you a lesser being to some extent. Granted the example is exaggerated, but that is the principle.

And it is a foolish principle. When I go out onto my land to hunt I do not bring a cell phone (doesn't work anyway), I don't have internet, I don't have a TV, I don't have electricity, I don't have running water, and on. Why do I suddenly become less of a human being simply because I don't have the ability to read what you have to say?

I know you do not mean this. It was an extremely poor choice of words from a person desperately trying to justify why he should receive absolute protection.

Oh my fuck, some of the responses in here gave me a headache. Yes, I agree minimum wage jobs should not be careers.
But I would dearly love to conduct an experiment, on some people here. We'll simply relieve you of all your property and financial resources and also your income, and replace it with a lowly sum - subsistence level, say, and set you loose on the streets. Then, you can check back in and let us know how you did. I think five years should be sufficient.
Being short on money means harder decision-making; it makes everything more difficult, makes it harder to dig oneself out.
There is a huge issue in North America with wealth distribution. And who you're born to makes all the difference. Don't bullshit me otherwise, thanks. I grew up with kids who were just handed quite a bit in life. They never earned it. They lived off the legacy and finance of their parents.

Vausch:
*snip*

I think it's fine to say "minimum wage jobs shouldn't be careers..." IF there is an alternative to minimum wage jobs. The problem is, in the US economy at least, we have senior citizens working at Wal-Mart and adults with kids working at McDonalds because THERE ARE NO OTHER JOBS - if you talk to the average Starbucks barista, half of them have college degrees. And the answer isn't "everyone needs a science, tech, math or engineering" degree - the economy would eventually be unable to support that many coders and engineers, either. (Also, not everyone is wired to pursue a career in mathematics or tech.)

In the 70's the argument that minimum wage jobs shouldn't be careers made sense because there were tons of UNIONS and FACTORY JOBS in the US that PUSHED UP WAGES for the average minimum class family - my grandfather, for example, was able to make a quarter of a million dollar a year salary with a pension on a High School diploma alone. It was very common for people working in Detroit (where I was born and raised) to work at, say, General Motors for their lifetime - on a high school diploma - and earn a very good living with medical benefits and a salary.

Problem is, the unions are disappearing and the factory jobs have moved overseas. Now where do all the vast numbers of middle class people go? Well, they basically go to jobs at McDonalds and Wal-Mart and into very low-paying healthcare jobs. They join what is called the "service economy" and basically form a new servant class that works for the small percentage of people (say, under 10% of the population) able to afford things like professional massages, restaurant meals, etc.

For the people WORKING in the service class economy, they usually stay there. Forever. Because there are very few places to go, and they don't earn enough to move into another, higher class. So they have children and they end up being 45 years old and working at McDonalds (with a spouse who works at Applebees, or Best Buy) - and they have very little options in life. Their kids aren't going to be going to great schools, they're going to lack quality health care, and there will be little money for luxuries and vacations - cheap "vices" like alcohol and tobacco become attractive because when you're poor and life holds little hope you'll go for what joy you can, what's right in front of you and what's easy.

Because that's all you're gonna get, and you know it.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think the question you are asking is the wrong question. I think the question you need to ask is, "WHY are so many people forced into minimum wage jobs as careers?" Do you honestly think people CHOOSE that for themselves?

Dead Century:
Oh my fuck, some of the responses in here gave me a headache. Yes, I agree minimum wage jobs should not be careers.
But I would dearly love to conduct an experiment, on some people here. We'll simply relieve you of all your property and financial resources and also your income, and replace it with a lowly sum - subsistence level, say, and set you loose on the streets. Then, you can check back in and let us know how you did. I think five years should be sufficient.
Being short on money means harder decision-making; it makes everything more difficult, makes it harder to dig oneself out.
There is a huge issue in North America with wealth distribution. And who you're born to makes all the difference. Don't bullshit me otherwise, thanks. I grew up with kids who were just handed quite a bit in life. They never earned it. They lived off the legacy and finance of their parents.

You are 100% correct, and the future doesn't look rosy, either.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21586581-economist-asks-provocative-questions-about-future-social-mobility-american

From the article:

"It describes a future largely stripped of middling jobs and broad prosperity. An elite 10-15% of Americans will have the brains and self-discipline to master tomorrow's technology and extract profit from it, he speculates. They will enjoy great wealth and stimulating lives. Others will endure stagnant or even falling wages, as employers measure their output with "oppressive precision". Some will thrive as service-providers to the rich. A few will claw their way into the elite (cheap online education will be a great leveller), bolstering the idea of a "hyper-meritocracy" at work: this "will make it easier to ignore those left behind."

Sounds fantastic, doesn't it?

Big_Willie_Styles:

And there's nothing sick about the billionaires. Outside of those who inherited their wealth (a very small percentage of the billionaires,) those guys and gals worked their damn asses off to get to that level. And they entered the right fields. No one's gettin' rich flippin' burgers.

And, they almost all happened to come from at least an upper-middle class background.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/22/are-we-entering-the-age-of-inherited-wealth/?mod=WSJBlog

"Yet their announcement obscures the fact that half of the top 10 on the Forbes list have inherited all or some of their wealth, making America's billboard chart of opportunity look increasingly like the the lucky sperm club."

To say that most people who become wealthy started out with "nothing" is disingenuous at best, manipulatively lying or deliberately ignorant at worst.

Vegosiux:

Well, if they are only making minimum wage they probably shouldn't be able to afford those things.

Why not?

And this, right here, is very telling. Why not, indeed.

The reason, I believe, is this prevailing attitude among some that the poor should be "punished" for being poor. Those on a minimum wage job "shouldn't be able" to afford nice things. They should live in utter dirt and poverty and they should spend every waking moment of their miserable, poor lives struggling to earn capital so they can eventually join the ranks of those who deserve "luxuries" like telephone access or healthy food.

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/poverty/

We have this queer notion in the US that the poor shouldn't have too comfortable of a life, to "incentivize" them to produce more. It's nauseating to me.

The Gnome King:

Dead Century:
Oh my fuck, some of the responses in here gave me a headache. Yes, I agree minimum wage jobs should not be careers.
But I would dearly love to conduct an experiment, on some people here. We'll simply relieve you of all your property and financial resources and also your income, and replace it with a lowly sum - subsistence level, say, and set you loose on the streets. Then, you can check back in and let us know how you did. I think five years should be sufficient.
Being short on money means harder decision-making; it makes everything more difficult, makes it harder to dig oneself out.
There is a huge issue in North America with wealth distribution. And who you're born to makes all the difference. Don't bullshit me otherwise, thanks. I grew up with kids who were just handed quite a bit in life. They never earned it. They lived off the legacy and finance of their parents.

You are 100% correct, and the future doesn't look rosy, either.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21586581-economist-asks-provocative-questions-about-future-social-mobility-american

From the article:

"It describes a future largely stripped of middling jobs and broad prosperity. An elite 10-15% of Americans will have the brains and self-discipline to master tomorrow's technology and extract profit from it, he speculates. They will enjoy great wealth and stimulating lives. Others will endure stagnant or even falling wages, as employers measure their output with "oppressive precision". Some will thrive as service-providers to the rich. A few will claw their way into the elite (cheap online education will be a great leveller), bolstering the idea of a "hyper-meritocracy" at work: this "will make it easier to ignore those left behind."

Sounds fantastic, doesn't it?

Sounds fucking scary. I'm not American so things aren't quite as bad here in Canada, but I'm starting to see some changes. I've always regarded my uncle as a smart guy and basically what he told me was this.

'In the 50s, incomes were more equal, the middle class and manufacturing were strong, union membership was high, tax levels were progressive (the richest 80%, the average 25 - 40%, the poorest 15% ), inflation, unemployment and interest rates were low, and business was expanding. The economic theory was demand-side where consumers drive the engine.

When we switched to supply-side economic policies, which favours investors, taxes were cut, but only on the rich (now they pay 29%, the average 22 - 26% while the poorest still pay 15%), so they could invest more. We have income inequality worse than the 20s, the middle class and manufacturing is eroding and unions are under attack. Minimum wage puts you below or around the poverty line.'

Now that I think of it, you know what I find especially ridiculous?

That the people who hold the opinion that the poor "don't deserve this and that" tend to be in favor of supply-side economics. I mean, where's the logic in that, how's supply-side going to encourage demand and growth if you're going to lock a large chunk of people out of it?

Stephen Sossna:
This reply completely misses the point. The United States did not start out with culture and social structures at 0. Again this wasn't a PC game of some kind, but a country founded by people who already had a cultural and social background.

..

Obviously not the same, but just as advanced, yes. I have no idea if your "2000 years" comment is just trolling or that you really believe that a.) There was some kind of continuous advance in "France" (an entity that didn't exist 2000 years ago) and b.) That America started at the same "state zero" as the remnants of the roman empire. I don't think you need to be a history major to realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds..

An amusing idea, I think.

Advanced Start: Plow agriculture, iron working, rudimentary sailing, masonry, archery, hunting, tanning, horseback riding, calendar.
1620 AD Founded New Plymouth. Time to start building a worker. Chose "milling" as first research target. Will proceed to crucible steel, compass and astronomical navigation, the engineering of massive stone structures, and chivalry. Eventually will rediscover gunpowder for what are these mysterious tubular instruments we brought along; they look to be if not of primary importance, at least Secondary.
1621 AD Lots of corn means lots of population growth. Storks love corn.
1664 AD Gifted New Amsterdam from mysterious benevolent military forces from across the seas. Renamed it New York.
1675 AD Maybe I shouldn't have checked "raging barbarians"... and why do they have muskets!?
1678 AD Gunpowder. Is. Awesome!
1689 AD Suffering and damnation! Beaten to political liberalism by some anonymous twat writing in England: congrats, William of Orange. There goes that free technological advance (it seems glorious Willem chose 'Representation'.) Not finding these stone "castles" quite as useful as I'd first imagined: not sure why we bothered with figuring out how to build them.
1692 AD Witches! Witches everywhere! Agh!
1709 AD Uh... OK, maybe not.
1776 AD Ok, so Scotland spawned a great merchant and discovered economics (on behalf of England) but on the other hand tea seems overpriced. Revolt!

Stephen Sossna:
Start from scratch? Isn't the US legal system heavily derived from the British one? Don't treat America like it evolved in a vacuum.

Hey hey now, Louisiana law is derived from the Napoleonic Code. We basically invented the wheel here. ;)

Stephen Sossna:
You'll have to define what "basic dietary requirements" are.

The vitamins and materials needed for your body to function properly.

Mc Donalds supplies fat and carbon hydrates, it's just not healthy

In mass quantities no. But it provides some of the basics. Fats and carbs are needed for a human body to function properly. Just not in mass quantities.

I guess Germany is really fucked then, seeing as it's entire economy and infrastructure was destroyed as recently as 75 years ago.

If you honestly think its entire economy and infrastructure was destroyed then you need to try going to Germany. My area of expertise is in Central and Eastern Europe from the Imperial Age. I still have a lot to work with.

As if the European peoples (that "s" is intentional) had been so homogenous over the last 2000 years. Sure european cultures never clashed in the last 200 years ;).

Did I say that? Try reading what I wrote and not what you wanted me to write. I wrote cultures.

Cultural clashes are not uncommon between cultures that have known each other for long periods but they are far more prevalent in cultures that have not had contact in several thousand years.

Let us see, culture clash between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Prussia in the 17th Century vs. culture clash between 17th Century Englishmen vs. the billion Native American tribes/city states. Hmmmmm. I wonder which would be worse.

Start from scratch? Isn't the US legal system heavily derived from the British one?

Derived, not the same. It was built from scratch because the English system is based upon principles that do not exist in the Americas. It would be like saying that the English, French, Italian city states, Spanish, Barbary Pirates, Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, and on did not have to create their own laws because their laws were derived from Roman law.

This reply completely misses the point. The United States did not start out with culture and social structures at 0.

For all intents and purposes yes it did. Sure, familial bonds still existed but even those were significantly altered by the landscape.

Again this wasn't a PC game of some kind

And you need to stop treating it as such. You are acting as if every advancement is a direct continuation. That is not how it works.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way this works. You somehow think that if you put a German from Nurnberg, a German from Prussia, a Swede, a Frenchman from Lorraine, a Englishman from London, and a Spaniard from Morocco in a piece of land then they can continue where they left off. That is not how it works. Based upon the simple differences in their cultures they have to hit reset. Based upon topography they cannot remain as they were. Based upon their entire situation they have to hit reset.

Let us just take a theoretical English colony as an example. This city is founded at the same period as Jamestown (so very early 1600s). What is different? Nobility is irrelevant. Everybody has to provide something so there is no lounging class. Money is irrelevant because there is nothing to buy, only trade. Not to mention the fact that your fellow inhabitants (specifically the Native Americans) have no use for money. You are in foreign territory where you do not know the language, culture, topography, etc. and your only way to gain said knowledge is to either venture out into the wilderness (something that does not really exist in England) or you have to meet up with a group of people that can wipe you out of existence easily. England, as a country, is irrelevant because it is 3,000 miles away. Who cares about English laws and customs? They cannot enforce their laws. Nor can they protect us. We are effectively alone with an unknown group of people that we do not understand. Your social hierarchy system is gone and is replaced by more or less group rule with the occasionally military junta. Your technology is even scarcer than before and due to the fact that you are in a different territory with different rules your technology might even hinder you. And on.

So, under those conditions you think that England is simply transplanted in the colony. You do not need to be a history major to know how ridiculous that is. The fundamental assumptions about government, economic, society, and culture that those colonists lived by was turned on its head. Did some things survive? Sure, the Spanish transplanted limpieza de sangre into the colonies. However, even that statute changed from a primarily religious function in Spain to a racial function in the Americas. And even with that the Spanish had to adjust the law in order for it to function within the existing Native American systems.

Your beliefs are far too simplistic.

a country founded by people who already had a cultural and social background.

Many cultures and social backgrounds. Sorry, you do not get to leave out the basic fact that this is a wide array of people who are mixing and matching their socio-economic cultural positions and building something new. Some of those aristocrats went from luxury to living next door to a merchant. Don't you think that changes your social arrangements?

I have no idea if your "2000 years" comment is just trolling or that you really believe that a.) There was some kind of continuous advance in "France" (an entity that didn't exist 2000 years ago) and b.) That America started at the same "state zero" as the remnants of the roman empire. I don't think you need to be a history major to realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds.

Let us see, there were bridges and roads being built in modern day France 2,000 years ago. The US had no such advantage. France's political, social, and economic existence is based upon its ancestry that existed 2,000 years ago (more actually but I decided to stop there).

Also, the Roman Empire did not fall 2,000 years ago. More like 1,500. About 2,000 years ago was when Gaul was conquered by the Romans.

Yeah, I can totally see how you are arguing in good faith here.

Coming from the guy who cannot seem to actually address what I am saying.

That's not a reasonable interpretation of what I said.

That is exactly what you said.

But when you have no access to these things at all, that will change the quality of your life and how others see you.

In your opinion but I lived for two decades without internet. Most people on earth have lived even longer without it. As for how others see you, sorry, you have failed to make me give a shit about your opinion of me.

Oh I absolutely mean it.

Ok never mind. Every single bit of allowance is gone. Your opinion is completely disgusting.

Super Not Cosmo:
I said this in a previous thread and I'll say it here. I think people have a bad misconception about what classifies a "living wage" a living wage shouldn't mean you are living well or even comfortable just that you have enough to get by on. And you can get by on the current minimum wage in the US. Oh sure it will suck hard most likely, make no mistake about that but it is doable. It might mean you have to rent a room and rely walking to get around and give up your two pack a day habit but it's doable.

I think the root of the problem is what we have come to think of as necessities. Necessities are a heated roof over your head running water and food. Things that are NOT necessities include cell phones, cigarettes, the internet, a car, all sorts of things that I see people complaining that minimum wage employees can't afford. Well, if they are only making minimum wage they probably shouldn't be able to afford those things. Yet if you are ever in a drive through and see employees outside on break you will almost always notice that they are either smoking or texting or oftentimes both. This tells me that maybe the problem isn't the wages being paid but the priorities of the workers that need to be called into question.

Would you be willing to provide a list of what items become unlocked to people at which income brackets?

TekMoney:

Super Not Cosmo:
I said this in a previous thread and I'll say it here. I think people have a bad misconception about what classifies a "living wage" a living wage shouldn't mean you are living well or even comfortable just that you have enough to get by on. And you can get by on the current minimum wage in the US. Oh sure it will suck hard most likely, make no mistake about that but it is doable. It might mean you have to rent a room and rely walking to get around and give up your two pack a day habit but it's doable.

I think the root of the problem is what we have come to think of as necessities. Necessities are a heated roof over your head running water and food. Things that are NOT necessities include cell phones, cigarettes, the internet, a car, all sorts of things that I see people complaining that minimum wage employees can't afford. Well, if they are only making minimum wage they probably shouldn't be able to afford those things. Yet if you are ever in a drive through and see employees outside on break you will almost always notice that they are either smoking or texting or oftentimes both. This tells me that maybe the problem isn't the wages being paid but the priorities of the workers that need to be called into question.

Would you be willing to provide a list of what items become unlocked to people at which income brackets?

I think his list is like.

TekMoney:

Super Not Cosmo:
I said this in a previous thread and I'll say it here. I think people have a bad misconception about what classifies a "living wage" a living wage shouldn't mean you are living well or even comfortable just that you have enough to get by on. And you can get by on the current minimum wage in the US. Oh sure it will suck hard most likely, make no mistake about that but it is doable. It might mean you have to rent a room and rely walking to get around and give up your two pack a day habit but it's doable.

I think the root of the problem is what we have come to think of as necessities. Necessities are a heated roof over your head running water and food. Things that are NOT necessities include cell phones, cigarettes, the internet, a car, all sorts of things that I see people complaining that minimum wage employees can't afford. Well, if they are only making minimum wage they probably shouldn't be able to afford those things. Yet if you are ever in a drive through and see employees outside on break you will almost always notice that they are either smoking or texting or oftentimes both. This tells me that maybe the problem isn't the wages being paid but the priorities of the workers that need to be called into question.

Would you be willing to provide a list of what items become unlocked to people at which income brackets?

People are free to buy whatever the hell they want. If the guy serving me my taco salad at Taco Bell wants to go and spend his entire paycheck on scratch offs and bags of weed who am I to stop him? Where I have a problem is then seeing the same guy turning around and bitching that he doesn't have enough money to live on. My point being that living on minimum wage is in fact doable but as a rule it doesn't typically allow for much excess spending beyond the basics of not sleeping in the rain or starving.

One of the best real world examples of this is seen by watching fast food workers on break. It's beyond common for them to be standing behind/beside/in front of the store smoking and texting away on a smartphone. The price of cigarettes where I live is around 7 dollars a pack if Google is to be believed. So let's assume they only smoke a half a pack a day which is likely extremely conservative. That's 3.50 a day times 30 days which is 105 dollars a month spent on cigarettes. Add on another 50 or more for their cell plan and then however much for energy drinks or god knows what else and you are probably looking at 200 dollars or more. Assuming these folks are only making minimum wage that's just shy of a full week's paycheck on superfluous garbage. If they are a pack a day smoker that's OVER a full week's paycheck. It's hard for me to sympathize with people complaining they don't make enough to get by on when a quarter or more of their money is spent as I described above.

Dead Century:

Sounds fucking scary. I'm not American so things aren't quite as bad here in Canada, but I'm starting to see some changes. I've always regarded my uncle as a smart guy and basically what he told me was this.

'In the 50s, incomes were more equal, the middle class and manufacturing were strong, union membership was high, tax levels were progressive (the richest 80%, the average 25 - 40%, the poorest 15% ), inflation, unemployment and interest rates were low, and business was expanding. The economic theory was demand-side where consumers drive the engine.

When we switched to supply-side economic policies, which favours investors, taxes were cut, but only on the rich (now they pay 29%, the average 22 - 26% while the poorest still pay 15%), so they could invest more. We have income inequality worse than the 20s, the middle class and manufacturing is eroding and unions are under attack. Minimum wage puts you below or around the poverty line.'

It's pretty much exactly the same story in the US. People really don't understand how unions and high union membership helped to create a strong middle class - unions have been all but demonized in the US.

This thread has went on for 3 pages with 2 questionable suspensions, and I'm not even sure what you guys are talking about here; fast food workers should make more money?

Why? Because life's not fair?

Uncle Sam is not here to force adults to share their toys.

I'm 31, I make 20 bucks an hour. When I started working at 14 years old in 1996, I made 4.25 an hour. If people want to make more money, they should pay their dues like everyone else and go out and learn marketable job skills.

Otherwise the moment that a McDonald's worker gets $15 bucks an hour, I quit and get a job flipping burgers like everyone else- so I don't have to put up with the shit at my current job anymore. I could survive on $10 an hour, I planned my whole life around losing my current job at any moment. This is the new normal.

The problem is there's no economic opportunity; it's survival of the smartest out there right now, and globalism is to blame.

I'm pretty sure the double dip recession comes next year.

xDarc:
I'm 31, I make 20 bucks an hour. When I started working at 14 years old in 1996, I made 4.25 an hour. If people want to make more money, they should pay their dues like everyone else and go out and learn marketable job skills.

Otherwise the moment that a McDonald's worker gets $15 bucks an hour, I quit and get a job flipping burgers like everyone else- so I don't have to put up with the shit at my current job anymore. I could survive on $10 an hour, I planned my whole life around losing my current job at any moment. This is the new normal.

The problem is there's no economic opportunity; it's survival of the smartest out there right now, and globalism is to blame.

Amen to this! I too have paid my dues working for peanuts. I even did so for a while during my adult life. The first handful of my adult years were financially stupid with no shortage of zeroes on the end. Eventually though I took some initiative and went and applied to deal blackjack at a casino that was opening locally and I'm now making a comfortable living as a manager at that casino despite drunkenly failing out of college and sobering up in a dead end job at Blockbuster Video.

Despite what people seem to think there is no participation reward for working a shitty job. If you want to better yourself it's up to you to improve your lot in life. Nobody is going to come and bail you out just because. The sooner people realize this the better off they tend to be. I realized it in my mid twenties. My wife realized it in high school and she now has a degree and a job where she makes really good money for showing up and simply being present most days. My sister-in-law is in her mid twenties and still hasn't realized it. She works as a waitress at a pizza place and just hit us up for money to avoid being homeless.

Captcha: Start saving today . . . . . Sound financial advice Captcha, sound advice indeed.

Super Not Cosmo:

Amen to this! I too have paid my dues working for peanuts. I even did so for a while during my adult life. The first handful of my adult years were financially stupid with no shortage of zeroes on the end. Eventually though I took some initiative and went and applied to deal blackjack at a casino that was opening locally and I'm now making a comfortable living as a manager at that casino despite drunkenly failing out of college and sobering up in a dead end job at Blockbuster Video.

I'm sorry, but I kind of have to ask...

What's your point here? Is it a point you're making about yourself (in which case, how is it relevant?), a point you're making about people on minimum wage (in which case, what is it?) or a point you're making about the welfare state (in which case, again, what is it?)

Vegosiux:

Super Not Cosmo:

Amen to this! I too have paid my dues working for peanuts. I even did so for a while during my adult life. The first handful of my adult years were financially stupid with no shortage of zeroes on the end. Eventually though I took some initiative and went and applied to deal blackjack at a casino that was opening locally and I'm now making a comfortable living as a manager at that casino despite drunkenly failing out of college and sobering up in a dead end job at Blockbuster Video.

I'm sorry, but I kind of have to ask...

What's your point here? Is it a point you're making about yourself (in which case, how is it relevant?), a point you're making about people on minimum wage (in which case, what is it?) or a point you're making about the welfare state (in which case, again, what is it?)

I think you may have missed the second paragraph. I posted before I was done and added it a few minutes later.

Super Not Cosmo:

Vegosiux:

Super Not Cosmo:

Amen to this! I too have paid my dues working for peanuts. I even did so for a while during my adult life. The first handful of my adult years were financially stupid with no shortage of zeroes on the end. Eventually though I took some initiative and went and applied to deal blackjack at a casino that was opening locally and I'm now making a comfortable living as a manager at that casino despite drunkenly failing out of college and sobering up in a dead end job at Blockbuster Video.

I'm sorry, but I kind of have to ask...

What's your point here? Is it a point you're making about yourself (in which case, how is it relevant?), a point you're making about people on minimum wage (in which case, what is it?) or a point you're making about the welfare state (in which case, again, what is it?)

I think you may have missed the second paragraph. I posted before I was done and added it a few minutes later.

That paragraph indeed was not there when I replied to you.

So, how do you suggest the minimum wage people "improve themselves" (because they're obviously bad people in need of "improvement") with the resources they have available, both monetary, physical, and temporal? After all, if you're saying someone should do such and such, you need to look into their options to know your position is reasonable, yes?

Or let me put it another way. What are the resources you used to apply for that casino job? Was a phone involved? Some kind of a car, either yours, or loaned from a friend/family member? A guy knowing a guy dropping your name? Stuff like that.

Also, your wife gets paid for simply being present? Well ain't that lovely, teaching people to covet getting paid for doing no work, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Vegosiux:
So, how do you suggest the minimum wage people "improve themselves" (because they're obviously bad people in need of "improvement") with the resources they have available, both monetary, physical, and temporal?

Or let me put it another way. What are the resources you used to apply for that casino job? Was a phone involved? Some kind of a car, either yours, or loaned from a friend/family member? Stuff like that.

What resources I used is largely irrelevant as all you are interested in is pointing out why these people can't improve their lot in life. If it's not one thing it's another. People that want to sit around and play the apologist for these minimum wage earners are doing them no favors at all. The only thing you are doing is giving them the peace of mind of knowing that it's not their fault. They just weren't born privileged enough some how and it's society that has failed them and not their own shitty life choices that has seen them end up flipping burgers for minimum wage. By your logic they should just give up on improving themselves, put a giant chip on their shoulder, vote democrat for maximum government benefits, and hate everyone more successful than they are because somehow all the ills that have befallen them are the fault of "the evil rich".

I'll say it again, help isn't on the way for these people. If they want to make more money then they need to do so on their own. Relying on the government to come and bail them out is a sure fire way to remain a minimum wage earner. Just the same as relying on the lottery is. Meanwhile taking some personal responsibility for your own station in life and actively seeking to change that station will do wonders for most people. Another thing that does wonders for people is to stop fixating on all the potential reasons they can't improve themselves and ignoring all the bleeding heart libs telling them new reasons they can't succeed and instead start looking for ways to improve their lot in life.

Super Not Cosmo:
People that want to sit around and play the apologist for these minimum wage earners are doing them no favors at all. The only thing you are doing is giving them the peace of mind of knowing that it's not their fault. They just weren't born privileged enough some how and it's society that has failed them and not their own shitty life choices that has seen them end up flipping burgers for minimum wage. They should just give up on improving themselves, put a giant chip on their shoulder, vote democrat for maximum government benefits, and hate everyone more successful than they are because somehow all the ills that have befallen them are the fault of "the evil rich".

I better bring nothing flammable near this. Hasn't rained in a while, so the stuff this is made of is all dry. You're bashing points nobody made.

I'll say it again, help isn't on the way for these people. If they want to make more money then they need to do so on their own. Relying on the government to come and bail them out is a sure fire way to remain a minimum wage earner. Just the same as relying on the lottery is. Meanwhile taking some personal responsibility for your own station in life and actively seeking to change that station will do wonders for most people. Another thing that does wonders for people is to stop fixating on all the potential reasons they can't improve themselves and ignoring all the bleeding heart libs telling them new reasons they can't succeed and instead start looking for ways to improve their lot in life.

And this is simply a more elaborate repetition of what you've said in your previous post, spiced with some "bleeding heart libs" because why not take a stab as well.

Nobody's talking about anyone bailing out anyone, it's about giving people a leg-up when they need one so that they can pull themselves up the rest of the way. Sure, they'll only have to scale 90% of that wall on their own that way, but I don't see why you'd have a problem that's not related to egotism with that.

Vegosiux:
I better bring nothing flammable near this. Hasn't rained in a while, so the stuff this is made of is all dry. You're bashing points nobody made.

You say they are points nobody has made and I say I just preemptively responded to what would have likely been your follow up had I given you any answer besides the one I did. I bet you were waiting in the wings to jump on the list of resources I used and couldn't wait to point out how all those poor unfortunate souls don't have my good fortune. You should thank me I saved you a good deal of typing I bet.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked