Via Death and Taxes:

McDonald’s has partnered with Visa to make a website dedicated to showing its employees how to properly budget their meager peasant salaries. However, what it actually does is illustrate the fact that it is nearly impossible to get by on minimum wage, as shown in this “example” budget chart:



Yeah– now, when I first saw that, I assumed that the top line was for a part-time McDonald’s employee. Then I got out my calculator– that is actually what you would make if you were working full-time at McDonald’s. 1,105 dollars a month.

Now let’s say that the “second” job that they budget in here (feels like cheating, but OK) is also minimum wage. That would mean you were working about 62 hours a week, on average. Oh, wait. That’s if they live in Illinois where the minimum wage is $8.25. The national minimum wage is $7.25. That translates to 74 hours a week. That’s almost a whole other full time job.

And what do you get for working 74 hours a week? Well, you don’t get heat, clearly. There’s a big ol’ zero next to the heat in that chart. In my building– we have separate checks for gas and electric– that would mean that not only do you not get to heat and cool your home, but also that you do not get to heat your water, or cook on your stove, if you have a gas stove (I do).

Also noticeably absent in this budget? Food. And gas. There’s a line for a car payment, but not for gas. Which is suspect, because if you’re working two jobs it’s possible you will pay more for your gas than you’d be paying for your car.

Also… health insurance for $20 a month? There is really no such thing as health insurance for $20 a month if you’re buying your health insurance on your own. I think the least amount is going to be about $215 a month– and that only covers hospital emergencies.

The rest of the article goes on to talk about minimum wage, talking about Ayn Rand, etc. Feel free to read it, but I was more interested about the fact that 74 hours a week really doesn't leave any money left over.

That budget leaves $27 a day for food, clothes, gas for your car,...

Yeah, I saw this earlier today. Absolutely blows my mind that the answer to surviving on a McDonald's wage is to work another job as well. They're straight up admitting that you can't actually survive on what they pay.

That said, it's fair that they don't put food in there. The people I've known who worked at McDonald's pretty much got all their meals for the week from stealing McNuggets on the job, and they were just working part time. Work full time at McDonalds and McNugget theft becomes necessary to survival, as well as delicious.

Bottom line, McDonalds is not, and should not be, a job you work at permanently.

Its a job for college and high school students or someone who is between jobs.

Yeah, at least there are more than enough jobs that pay more than twice minimum wage out there for people that might only have a high school degree so that they don't have to worry about a budget like this.

Demand is greater than supply.

You know if McDonalds paid a wage you could make a living on there would be less jobs at McDonalds. So not much net change. Plus the service would be slower and the food more expensive.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bottom line, McDonalds is not, and should not be, a job you work at permanently.

Bottom line, 'should' is irrelevant, 'is' matters.

And the plain simple fething reality of life 'is' that many people simply aren't ever going to get a better job than a basic service one. That's due to a whole host of reasons that we can debate forever, but none if that changes the basic reality that many people will live their lives working jobs for near the minimum wage.

At which point we can just ignore that by talking about how long they 'should' be in such jobs, or we can be sensible, decent people, and start talking about how difficult life is for people on those kinds of income, and how absurd it is to let people exist near poverty in a society filled with so much wealth.

It's not that hard to get a restaurant job that pays higher than minimum wage. Go somewhere other than McDonald's. Restaurants are almost always hiring.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Demand is greater than supply.

You know if McDonalds paid a wage you could make a living on there would be less jobs at McDonalds.

Yeah, over here where the federal minimum wage is $16.37 an hour, or $20.30 if you're casual, McDonalds are ghost towns, with hardly any employees in them at all. Or possibly your argument above is nonsense.

So not much net change. Plus the service would be slower and the food more expensive.

The food would be more expensive. But then that's the point. Consumers pay a little more for a burger, and the employee gets a living wage.

 Hordini wrote:
It's not that hard to get a restaurant job that pays higher than minimum wage. Go somewhere other than McDonald's. Restaurants are almost always hiring.

Of course we are talking about having this budget for somebody that is working 74 hours at ANY minimum wage job, not just food service.

To do better than this budget you have to find a job that pays more than twice minimum wage if you are hoping to only work one job.

 Hordini wrote:
It's not that hard to get a restaurant job that pays higher than minimum wage. Go somewhere other than McDonald's. Restaurants are almost always hiring.

You'd be surprised, I've been job hunting for a few months now and none of the restaurants are hiring right now...

And that's in a tourist town in the middle of summer.

d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's not that hard to get a restaurant job that pays higher than minimum wage. Go somewhere other than McDonald's. Restaurants are almost always hiring.

Of course we are talking about having this budget for somebody that is working 74 hours at ANY minimum wage job, not just food service.

To do better than this budget you have to find a job that pays more than twice minimum wage if you are hoping to only work one job.

There are a lot of ways to reduce that budget too. Get a roommate (or roommates) and cut the rent in half. Cable is not a necessity, don't get it. Get a prepaid cellphone. Ride a bike or walk to work if you live close enough. Take public transit if it is available. Carpool. You don't need to buy new clothes every month.

Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's not that hard to get a restaurant job that pays higher than minimum wage. Go somewhere other than McDonald's. Restaurants are almost always hiring.

You'd be surprised, I've been job hunting for a few months now and none of the restaurants are hiring right now...

And that's in a tourist town in the middle of summer.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US restaurants are almost always hiring. They tend to have a very high turnover rate.

 Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of ways to reduce that budget too. Get a roommate (or roommates) and cut the rent in half. Cable is not a necessity, don't get it. Get a prepaid cellphone. Ride a bike or walk to work if you live close enough. Take public transit if it is available. Carpool. You don't need to buy new clothes every month.

The budget given by McDonalds has $600 for rent, so it's likely split with a room mate already. But then maybe not, because electric is $90 a month, so that probably isn't shared with someone else. At which point we're talking about a person who is and isn't living with a room-mate. Schroedinger's working poor.

So it's a screwy budget, but that shouldn't be too remarkable, because this thing is written by marketing guys trying to sell the Visa/McDonald's prepaid debt card scam. No-one involved is actually trying to figure out how a person on a McWage might reasonably live month to month, because they don't actually give a gak. If they did give a gak, they'd pay a decent wage.

Did we need this to prove that the minimum wage in America is completely sub standard?

Thought that was just general knowledge...

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of ways to reduce that budget too. Get a roommate (or roommates) and cut the rent in half. Cable is not a necessity, don't get it. Get a prepaid cellphone. Ride a bike or walk to work if you live close enough. Take public transit if it is available. Carpool. You don't need to buy new clothes every month.

The budget given by McDonalds has $600 for rent, so it's likely split with a room mate already. But then maybe not, because electric is $90 a month, so that probably isn't shared with someone else. At which point we're talking about a person who is and isn't living with a room-mate. Schroedinger's working poor.

So it's a screwy budget, but that shouldn't be too remarkable, because this thing is written by marketing guys trying to sell the Visa/McDonald's prepaid debt card scam. No-one involved is actually trying to figure out how a person on a McWage might reasonably live month to month, because they don't actually give a gak. If they did give a gak, they'd pay a decent wage.

I doubt that rent is already assumed to be split with a roommate. I get that it depends on the state and it would be a lot more expensive in California or New York, but in the Midwest you can rent an apartment for a hell of a lot less than $1200 a month (what the total rent would be on that budget if it was assumed that $600 comes from already splitting rent with a roommate). A brief search on craigslist reveals places with multiple bedrooms in my state for less than $600 a month.

I agree with you that the budget is FUBAR, and that the prepaid debit card thing is a scam.

 Hordini wrote:

d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's not that hard to get a restaurant job that pays higher than minimum wage. Go somewhere other than McDonald's. Restaurants are almost always hiring.

Of course we are talking about having this budget for somebody that is working 74 hours at ANY minimum wage job, not just food service.

To do better than this budget you have to find a job that pays more than twice minimum wage if you are hoping to only work one job.

There are a lot of ways to reduce that budget too. Get a roommate (or roommates) and cut the rent in half. Cable is not a necessity, don't get it. Get a prepaid cellphone. Ride a bike or walk to work if you live close enough. Take public transit if it is available. Carpool. You don't need to buy new clothes every month.

So get a roommate, which will need a house with another bedroom (and increase utility costs. So you might free up $200 instead of $300.

Cable/Cellphone bill cut in half by getting a prepaid might net you $50.

Ride a bike/walk/public transit is a hillarious joke in about 99% of the places in the USA. The budget presented doesn't even include gas for the car to get to two full time jobs and you really are getting a pretty crappy car for the amount in that budget.

You don't need clotes every month. But even for me personally I set appart $50 a month for clothes.

So your wise adjustments increased the budget by $250 a month and actually budgeting for clothes is going to decrease it by $50.

So you found that person $6 a day and now they have $33 a day for food, gas, soap, detergent, toilet paper.

A tank of gas is going to run $50 a week if you are driving to two jobs every day. ($200 a month, but lets be generous and say $150)
Health Insurance actually costs closer to $200 than $20.
Heating cost of $0? My gas bill runs $50 during the summer, closer to $150 in the winter. So lets average that out to $100.
Water/Sewer is going to run $50.
Upkeep on a vehicle should include a budget of $50 a month (to pay for mechanics, tag, title, registration, inspection, etc)

So your budget suggestions increased the "spending money" to $1000.
Money that McDonald's didn't bother to include in their budget totals $530 and decreases the "spending money" to $470.

So a person working 74 hours a week and has a roommate has $15 a day of disposable income for food and leisure.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bottom line, McDonalds is not, and should not be, a job you work at permanently.

Its a job for college and high school students or someone who is between jobs.

All the McDonalds around here have neither. They are so new to Texas their feet are still wet from the wade.

There are plenty of ways to cut that budget down, but all of them still involve working 72 hours/week and an abysmally low standard of living.

If you work 72 hours doing ANYTHING, you should have some degree of comfort not present in that budget.

sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Demand is greater than supply.

You know if McDonalds paid a wage you could make a living on there would be less jobs at McDonalds.

Yeah, over here where the federal minimum wage is $16.37 an hour, or $20.30 if you're casual, McDonalds are ghost towns, with hardly any employees in them at all. Or possibly your argument above is nonsense.

So not much net change. Plus the service would be slower and the food more expensive.

The food would be more expensive. But then that's the point. Consumers pay a little more for a burger, and the employee gets a living wage.

But that's just not good 'ole fashioned consumerism

Other than that visa debit card thing... which is a joke.

Why is it a bad thing the McD is offering budgeting tools?

Evidently McD is evil.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently McD is evil.

Oh! That makes sense!

 whembly wrote:
Other than that visa debit card thing... which is a joke.

Why is it a bad thing the McD is offering budgeting tools?

The budgeting tools isn't the problem. It's a good thing, actually.

The problem is what the tool shows. You need 2 minimum wage jobs to survive. Which sucks.

However, they do pay their assistant managers a reasonable sum, and getting up into the corporate ladder pays well. My ex started with them dropping fries in high school and worked her way to store manager and then supervising multiple stores. She became a training manager when we split, making comparable to my pay as an engineer.

How likely is it to NOT work in a minimum wage job during college?

 kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Other than that visa debit card thing... which is a joke.

Why is it a bad thing the McD is offering budgeting tools?

The budgeting tools isn't the problem. It's a good thing, actually.

Agreed.

The problem is what the tool shows. You need 2 minimum wage jobs to survive. Which sucks.

Also agreed... so what to do? BOOTSTRAP!

However, they do pay their assistant managers a reasonable sum, and getting up into the corporate ladder pays well. My ex started with them dropping fries in high school and worked her way to store manager and then supervising multiple stores. She became a training manager when we split, making comparable to my pay as an engineer.

Yup... management career in franchises are solid jobs.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
How likely is it to NOT work in a minimum wage job during college?

I don't know. I do know that my ex got raises every 6 months or so, before becoming a manager. Usually 0.25 at a time, but it added up. Most people aren't minimum wage long if they stay in one place for a while, but they still aren't making a ton of money.

When I was in high school and college, during the summers, I was lucky enough to get a swim instructor position at a private residential facility. Minimum wage as 4.25 to 5.15 at that time. I was paid $8 as a life guard and $10 as a swim instructor. Good pay at the time for no degree and a life guard and swim instructor certification.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
How likely is it to NOT work in a minimum wage job during college?

I wasn't until one of the unions caught on. See, me and my fellows were hired as interns/student assistants, which payed 11-12ish dollars. However, there was a union for employees like us(low paid employees doing service things) which we weren't a part of. So, as a cost cutting measure, we were all fired and rehired at minimum wage, with a monthly union fee as a thank you.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You know if McDonalds paid a wage you could make a living on there would be less jobs at McDonalds.

Yeah, over here where the federal minimum wage is $16.37 an hour, or $20.30 if you're casual, McDonalds are ghost towns, with hardly any employees in them at all. Or possibly your argument above is nonsense.

That extra money has to be made up somehow. Either the price is increased, Government has some sort of subsidy in place, or they have fewer employees. High wages, low prices, or fully staffed restaurants... pick two.

 whembly wrote:
Other than that visa debit card thing... which is a joke.

Why is it a bad thing the McD is offering budgeting tools?

Because that was obviously the point of this thread, rather than the point being that needing two full time jobs on minimum wage to survive is bad.

 Goliath wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Other than that visa debit card thing... which is a joke.

Why is it a bad thing the McD is offering budgeting tools?

Because that was obviously the point of this thread, rather than the point being that needing two full time jobs on minimum wage to survive is bad.

Okay then... let's take a step back.

Why is it necessarily a bad thing to work two jobs (or more)?

I think more then two jobs may be bad for your health. But two jobs isnt bad. What is bad is telling people in order to live on their wage, go get another job. It is like Wal-Mart having a Welfare office in every store for its employees.

I worked three jobs at once during college (two full time one part time). It sucked. I lived.

Labor used to perform tasks has a value. If flipping burgers is worth 9 bucks an hour, artificially valuing it at 20 an hour will have ripple effects that are going to hurt the folks that rely on those jobs. You cannot get around that.

Mcdonalds themselves here are crud. Barely any speak english My friend and me tried numerous times to get a job at several locations. When we where turned down again we asked the manager who is a friend of his at one of the locations. We asked why we didnt get the job when we where more then qualified. He said it was because we will work so hard they may have to pay us more or promote us. He said the workers there wouldnt like a younger white person making more then them or promoted, so they dont hire young white guys.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think more then two jobs may be bad for your health. But two jobs isnt bad. What is bad is telling people in order to live on their wage, go get another job. It is like Wal-Mart having a Welfare office in every store for its employees.

I get that... so how do you change that?

Best way is to better yourself and reflect on your expenses.

Im just saying Mcdonalds is stupid for putting this out, it woul have just been better to continue then putting out a poorly though out budget plan.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Mcdonalds themselves here are crud. Barely any speak english My friend and me tried numerous times to get a job at several locations. When we where turned down again we asked the manager who is a friend of his at one of the locations. We asked why we didnt get the job when we where more then qualified. He said it was because we will work so hard they may have to pay us more or promote us. He said the workers there wouldnt like a younger white person making more then them or promoted, so they dont hire young white guys.

My local golden arches probably had a similar system up until about 6-8 months ago. It was crystal clear when management changed. Poor employees that had been there forever went away and a new group came in. Store is cleaner, service better and more efficient, all around a good change. I talked to the new manager and she said that good employees cost a little more but she mans each shift with a couple less folks and gets more productivity than with the old set. Her biggest hassle isn't filling jobs, it is filling them with good workers. Being willing to gak can bad workers is a good thing.

Our other local joint, a Dairy Queen is still struggling but recently seems to be doing better. They have much less extensive personnel needs though (smaller shift manning requirements).

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think more then two jobs may be bad for your health. But two jobs isnt bad. What is bad is telling people in order to live on their wage, go get another job. It is like Wal-Mart having a Welfare office in every store for its employees.

Why is it bad? Because supporters of the minimum wage cry out that the minimum wage is the lowest amount someone needs to earn to live. McDonalds clearly shows that it's not possible to live on the minimum wage salary that they provide their workers.

And you're not telling people they can live on their wage, you're telling them that their wages aren't enough so they have to get another job to earn enough wages to live...

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think more then two jobs may be bad for your health. But two jobs isnt bad. What is bad is telling people in order to live on their wage, go get another job. It is like Wal-Mart having a Welfare office in every store for its employees.

Why is it bad? Because supporters of the minimum wage cry out that the minimum wage is the lowest amount someone needs to earn to live. McDonalds clearly shows that it's not possible to live on the minimum wage salary that they provide their workers.

And you're not telling people they can live on their wage, you're telling them that their wages aren't enough so they have to get another job to earn enough wages to live...

It's worth noting that any employer directly forcing it's workers to work 72hours a week "Work 72 hours or you're fired", would probably be in violation of a labor laws in most places. The fact they do it indirectly "Work 72 hours a week or be homeless and/or hungry", is really the same thing those labor laws were designed to stop in the first place.

Never mind that this makes social programs like food stamps, etc.., effectively a corporate subsidy by allowing them to pay impractically low wages without losing their labor force, by virtue of their labor force not dropping dead.

The minimum-wage economy: because it cost way too much to house and feed actual slaves.

Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

It's like things are so gakky for some people, that a gakky but marginally less gakky situation is really appealing.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

It's like things are so gakky for some people, that a gakky but marginally less gakky situation is really appealing.

Exactly. Then the can improve their skills and get an even less gacky job and so on and so on.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

It's like things are so gakky for some people, that a gakky but marginally less gakky situation is really appealing.

Indeed. I work for more than minimum wage and even then it isn't always easy to make ends meet and it is only thanks to family my wife and i have been able to get by at times.

Thankfully my wife is now on a good wage and i am starting a new job in september which will almost double my pay (and holidays too ). I'm more than aware that some people dont have the breaks to get into the 'professional' classes like we have, nor doea everyonr have the skills or ability to do so. That doeany mean they have to live in gak because of it.

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

It's like things are so gakky for some people, that a gakky but marginally less gakky situation is really appealing.

Exactly. Then the can improve their skills and get an even less gacky job and so on and so on.

If you ask me, those illegals are just entitled. After all, they're not rotting in NK prison camps, so they're just used to having it so good.

I agree. Dern NK's takin our yobs!

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

It's like things are so gakky for some people, that a gakky but marginally less gakky situation is really appealing.

Exactly. Then the can improve their skills and get an even less gacky job and so on and so on.

Oh my god yes. If only the poor people would try and stop being poor. It's so simple! Why haven't those poor people tried it before when it's so obvious? I guess they're just not smart enough to figure out they should start trying to not be poor. That's probably why they're so poor.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

It's like things are so gakky for some people, that a gakky but marginally less gakky situation is really appealing.

Exactly. Then the can improve their skills and get an even less gacky job and so on and so on.

Oh my god yes. If only the poor people would try and stop being poor. It's so simple! Why haven't those poor people tried it before when it's so obvious? I guess they're just not smart enough to figure out they should start trying to not be poor. That's probably why they're so poor.

That seems unlikely. It's pretty hard to hone your skills when all you're doing 80 hours a week is unskilled labor. I guess maybe if you didn't sleep and neglected other aspects of life, such as personal hygiene, household tasks, and so on, but then you're working against borrowed time, because the lack of sleep/hygiene would start to cause your ability to hold your current jobs to fall apart.

...Oh, I get it!!!

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet millions of illegal aliens have risked their lives to take them...

It's like things are so gakky for some people, that a gakky but marginally less gakky situation is really appealing.

Exactly. Then the can improve their skills and get an even less gacky job and so on and so on.

Oh my god yes. If only the poor people would try and stop being poor. It's so simple! Why haven't those poor people tried it before when it's so obvious? I guess they're just not smart enough to figure out they should start trying to not be poor. That's probably why they're so poor.

KYLE'S FATHER
Ha ha ha ha ha! Ooh-ho boy, have you
got a lot to learn! Sit down, son.
You see, Kyle, we humans work as a society,
and in order for a society to thrive,
we need gods, and clods.

KYLE
Gods and clods?

KYLE'S FATHER
Yes. You see, I spent a lot of time
going to law school, and I was able
to go because I have a slightly higher
intellect than others. But I still need
people to pump my gas, and make my French
fries, and fix my laundry machine when
it breaks down.

KYLE
Oooohh, I see. Gods and clods!

KYLE'S FATHER
That's right. So Kenny's family is happy
just the way they are, and we're all
a functioning part of America.

bodazoka wrote:
Did we need this to prove that the minimum wage in America is completely sub standard?

Thought that was just general knowledge...

As has been proven is several threads. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing to change the situation. it just shifts numbers around.

Raising the minimum wage increases the cost of all items, but not everybody works for minimum wage or has a salary tied to minimum wage.

Remember that salaries are a cost of a product.


Lets say we have a town that is completely self sufficient. There are 3 factories in town. One makes Widgets and employes only minimum wage earners. Another makes Doodads and employs only Union workers. And the last factory makes Wotzits, it employes people that are non-union and pays above minimum wage.

Lets also make the assumption that half the people in town work at the Wotzit factory and a quarter work at both the Doo-dad and Widget factory.

Minimum wage is $7 an hour. Union wage is $12 and if the minimum wage goes up they get the equivalent % increase in their pay. The Wotzit workers are paid $12 an hour.

Costs of production,

Widgets: Sell for $10. $5 in labor. $3 in material. $2 profit.

Doodads: Sell for $15. $8 in labor. $5 in material. $2 profit.

Wotzits: Sell for $13. $8 in labor. $3 in material. $2 profit.


Everyone works 8 hour days.

Minimum wage: $56 a day. They are able to purchase 5.6 Widgets, 3.73 Doodads, or 4.3 Wotzits

Union: $96 a day. They are able to purchase 9.6 Widgets, 6.4 Doodads, or 7.38 Wotzits

non-union: $96 a day. They are able to purchase 9.6 Widgets, 6.4 Doodads, or 7.38 Wotzits


Now, someone increases the minimum wage from $7 to $7.70. A 10% increase. The Union wage also increases 10%

The price of Widgets and Doodads increases to maintain the $2 profit margin.

New Costs of production,

Widgets: Sell for $10.50 $5.50 in labor. $3 in material. $2 profit.

Doodads: Sell for $15.80 $8.80 in labor. $5 in material. $2 profit.

Wotzits: Sell for $13. $8 in labor. $3 in material. $2 profit.



Minimum wage: $61.60 a day. They are able to purchase 5.86667 Widgets, 3.89 Doodads, or 4.73 Wotzits

Union: $105.60 a day. They are able to purchase 10.05 Widgets, 6.68 Doodads, or 8.12 Wotzits

non-union: $96 a day. They are able to purchase 9.14 Widgets, 6.07 Doodads, or 7.38 Wotzits


People making minimum and union wage saw a small increase in purchasing power, but non-unions saw a decrease in purchasing power. Half the people benefited, but half the people got screwed by the minimum wage increase. because they saw prices rise with no equivalent increase in wage.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

Mind you. We are a 24/7 organization

Uh oh, now you can kiss that high paying minimum wage job goodbye:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

 Frazzled wrote:
Uh oh, now you can kiss that high paying minimum wage job goodbye:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Will it fix the problem of onions constantly getting in my burger?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Uh oh, now you can kiss that high paying minimum wage job goodbye:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Will it fix the problem of onions constantly getting in my burger?

If it's a problem that there are onions on your burger, the problem isn't with the onions or the burger, it's with you.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Uh oh, now you can kiss that high paying minimum wage job goodbye:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Will it fix the problem of onions constantly getting in my burger?

"Can I get mine without any onions?"

<Phrase "without any onions" unrecognised. Request does not compute. Request denied. Administering cyanide.>

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Uh oh, now you can kiss that high paying minimum wage job goodbye:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Will it fix the problem of onions constantly getting in my burger?

IN SKYNET RUSSIA YOU ARE THE BURGER!

Recycled food is good for you....

 Jihadin wrote:
Recycled food is good for you....

Chongara wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Uh oh, now you can kiss that high paying minimum wage job goodbye:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Will it fix the problem of onions constantly getting in my burger?

If it's a problem that there are onions on your burger, the problem isn't with the onions or the burger, it's with you.

Onions, alright. The amount of oninons Mc D's puts on a double cheeseburger? Not alright

Don't ever get their Grilled Onion Cheddar Burger then... which is fething delicious!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Uh oh, now you can kiss that high paying minimum wage job goodbye:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Will it fix the problem of onions constantly getting in my burger?

If it's a problem that there are onions on your burger, the problem isn't with the onions or the burger, it's with you.

Onions, alright. The amount of oninons Mc D's puts on a double cheeseburger? Not alright

They are just trying to give the crap they pass off as food SOME flavour

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

Mind you. We are a 24/7 organization

O.o I didn't realize that there's a disparity of pay between senior E vs first year O. Guess it pays to get a degree (then go to OCS school) in the military...eh?

 Grey Templar wrote:

As has been proven is several threads. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing to change the situation. it just shifts numbers around

Which is why having an extensive welfare state is so important. If society doesn't want to tackle wealth inequality then the government must ensure that the poor are able to survive and have at least a reasonable standard of living. Instead all we seem to get in this country is hysteria about 'scroungers' and a steadily widening gap between rich and poor.

The problem with the 'bootstrap' method is that it only works if a) you have the ability and time to train and look for a better job and b) that there are better jobs available that will actually hire you.

I attempted to survive on a mimimum wage job in Edinburgh about 10 years ago when I finished university while I vainly peddled my CV around. It simply doesn't work, once the basic bills were paid I barely had enough money for food, never mind anything else. In the end I had to move home to stay with my mother and it was luck (and a good interview) that saw me finally get a good job.

You are all insane, Onions are gods gift ot mankind

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You are all insane, Onions are gods gift ot mankind

Unless you have too much of these:


Your belly will hate you!

 whembly wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You are all insane, Onions are gods gift ot mankind

Unless you have too much of these:


Your belly will hate you!

That's exactly what the McDonalds Grilled Onion Cheddar Burger tastes like!

Edit: Haven't had white castle in 2 years since I once bought a crave case, ate 14 that night, and then proceeded to eat the remaining 16 over the next few days for lunch and dinner...

I still miss it some days though.

I go for the Chicken Breast with cheese...

Man I'm hungry... I know what I'm eating tonight.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

As has been proven is several threads. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing to change the situation. it just shifts numbers around

Which is why having an extensive welfare state is so important. If society doesn't want to tackle wealth inequality then the government must ensure that the poor are able to survive and have at least a reasonable standard of living. .

Why?

Because starving sucks.

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

Mind you. We are a 24/7 organization

The military also have all sorts of benefits that a McDonald's worker never comes close to seeing. Mind you, that isn't saying the pay is great at the start, but it isn't comparable on a dollar to dollar basis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And occasionally leads to riots and such, but lets not let something like facts (an increasing wealth gap and stunted upward mobility) stop a bootstrap fantasy from forming policy or discussion.

 Frazzled wrote:

Why?

Do you have no empathy at all?

People living in poverty in extremely rich countries is an obscentiy.

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And?

Im on my phone or i would find and post it, but there was an excellent video on the growing wealth gap and how skewed things really are. Had an animated graph with what people thought things were like, how they ideally would like them and how they actually are.

Pretty interesting.

People living in poverty in extremely rich countries is an obscentiy.

I don't know what an obscentiy is but it sounds rather unpleasant!

 Frazzled wrote:

People living in poverty in extremely rich countries is an obscentiy.

I don't know what an obscentiy is but it sounds rather unpleasant!

I hear it is good spread on toast.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

Mind you. We are a 24/7 organization

The military also have all sorts of benefits that a McDonald's worker never comes close to seeing. Mind you, that isn't saying the pay is great at the start, but it isn't comparable on a dollar to dollar basis.

It's kind of a plus that your career track/income is so predictable year to year, and it always goes up. That said, the whole grade thing is kind of greek to me. Just for curiosity sake it'd be interested in knowing roughly what the grades mean, and portion of the military falls into he different categories. Assuming it can easily be put in terms a non-military type can grasp. I'm assuming this is income before any taxes or other deductions?

The theoretical mcdonalds employee in the budget is working 72 hours per week at minimum wage, probably on their feet the whole time and dealing with people and they still only make half of what most of us lazy donkey-caves do sitting at a desk.

That should bother you.

72 hours of hard manual labor should be worth more than that. Don't care what your ideology is, 72 hours of labor is the bootstrap that you claim people should be pulling themselves up with. That should be worth more than that budget.

A lot of you guys in here are saying that one should just work hard and persevere and they'll get a better job. Really? They're already working 72 hours a week in one of the worst possible jobs, what "hard work" can they do from there?

 Ahtman wrote:
let something like facts (an increasing wealth gap and stunted upward mobility) stop a bootstrap fantasy from forming policy or discussion.

I can do a million pushups when no one is looking.

 daedalus wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
let something like facts (an increasing wealth gap and stunted upward mobility) stop a bootstrap fantasy from forming policy or discussion.

I can do a million pushups when no one is looking.

Isn't bootstrapping already policy? !

*looks at education system at all levels.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And?

So you would be okay if Gengis Connie ended up in such a situation?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The theoretical mcdonalds employee in the budget is working 72 hours per week at minimum wage, probably on their feet the whole time and dealing with people and they still only make half of what most of us lazy donkey-caves do sitting at a desk.

That should bother you.

72 hours of hard manual labor should be worth more than that. Don't care what your ideology is, 72 hours of labor is the bootstrap that you claim people should be pulling themselves up with. That should be worth more than that budget.

A lot of you guys in here are saying that one should just work hard and persevere and they'll get a better job. Really? They're already working 72 hours a week in one of the worst possible jobs, what "hard work" can they do from there?

It does bother me. It makes me think they are there only on a temporary basis until they get something better...

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And?

So you would be okay if Gengis Connie ended up in such a situation?

That wouldn't happen though, 'cause he raised her with that good ol' Texas sense of what hard work was.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And?

So you would be okay if Gengis Connie ended up in such a situation?

She won't, but this is a policy discussion. Pronouncements of opinion are being made as if they were absolutes. They aren't. So again why? and And?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
let something like facts (an increasing wealth gap and stunted upward mobility) stop a bootstrap fantasy from forming policy or discussion.

I can do a million pushups when no one is looking.

I can destroy a bathroom when no one is looking, if I've had Mexican food a few hours before...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And?

So you would be okay if Gengis Connie ended up in such a situation?

That wouldn't happen though, 'cause he raised her with that good ol' Texas sense of what hard work was.

I'm not going there. Having been an oilpatch refugee, watching our house get repossessed before repossessions were cool, I can say been there, done that and got a fething belt buckle.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

72 hours of hard manual labor should be worth more than that. Don't care what your ideology is, 72 hours of labor is the bootstrap that you claim people should be pulling themselves up with. That should be worth more than that budget.

Not all labor is valued the same, and it is GOOD that is the case. If the market determines the labor to flip burgers is $8 an hour, that is what it is worth. If the government jumps in and forces an employer to pay $10 or $20 an hour for labor valued at $8, someone gets hurt. If that was not the case, and a higher minimum wage is the answer to poverty, why go small? Why not make minimum wage something folks can really live off of? At 40 hours a week and a 50 week year (we get a couple for vacation, right) I think $200,000 a year should allow every one to live well right? So let's crank up the minimum to $100 and hour! Screw that, I think the poorest should make $300,000 a year, lets make minimum wage $150 an hour! Does that solve the problem?

Additionally, we can argue the definition of 'hard', I've worked fast food (and other minimum wage type jobs) and I've worked jobs requiring hard manual labor. Fast food prep and cash register work isn't hard manual labor (yes, that is an opinion, but market value for labor would seem to confirm it as a valid opinion). Hourly wages for construction jobs are higher than minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472061.htm

CptJake wrote:
[Long-winded error in thinking that "living well" equates to "living at all".]

Your hyperbole of a $200k minimum wage is asinine on its face and in no way constructive. You may as well have said that charity will fill the gap between the current minimum wage and the required-to-actually-live minimum wage.


And if I had to pay an extra 2% on my groceries to see the minimum wage increase to a livable standard then I'd gladly accept that, because I make well in excess of 2%-higher-than-the-minimum-wage-needed-to-live, and thus that extra 2% will not affect me in any way that I would ever notice. However, the increase in minimum wage would damned well make a difference in the lives of everyone earning that.


Ultimately, this is all going to boil down to an ideological debate between those with a sense of kinship for the whole of society, and those who walk around thinking "I've-got-mine-already-so-screw-you", as it always does.


EDIT: Holy gak that came off as way more holier-than-thou than it was meant to. Seriously not meant to be the implication there. Yikes.

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

Very few people have to starve in the US, at least anyone who lives in a city. There are food stamps, and if you can't get food stamps there are places you can go to get a meal every day. There are significant resources in place, both public and private, that allow you to not have to starve.

Unless you're part of the mostly ignored rural poor. Then you might be screwed.

Isn't it actually preferable in some situations in the US to go on Welfare over a low paying job? At least, that's what I've heard said somewhere before. Not sure if it's true. Just looking for clarification.

 Fafnir wrote:
Isn't it actually preferable in some situations in the US to go on Welfare over a low paying job? At least, that's what I've heard said somewhere before. Not sure if it's true. Just looking for clarification.

In some situations, that's probably true. But my point is, even if you do that, you're not starving. I'm not saying it's glamorous or good or something to strive for, but there's a big difference between being poor and starving.

Time to fire up the Legions. 25 years service will get you a acre of land and maybe a ox to help one farm.

 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And?

So you would be okay if Gengis Connie ended up in such a situation?

That wouldn't happen though, 'cause he raised her with that good ol' Texas sense of what hard work was.

I'm not going there. Having been an oilpatch refugee, watching our house get repossessed before repossessions were cool, I can say been there, done that and got a fething belt buckle.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, when I was in high school, I gave money to my parents when my dad just lost his job. After college, I spent a good two months living out of my car. Years later, I'm doing quite well for myself.

I still think that the difference between me and someone forced to work 80 hours a week between several minimum wage jobs to make ends meet is sheer luck, and it terrifies me constantly.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:
[Long-winded error in thinking that "living well" equates to "living at all".]

Holier than thou "I care for humanity and you don't" nonsense with no grounding in economic reality....

Look at how the real world works. Show me how raising minimum wages does not end up hurting lower income people. Higher wages = less minimum wage jobs. Employers can only ever afford to eat too much of the pay raise before they cut. That cut is a person. Or more. Bigger companies outsource to other countries. Small companies very often stay stagnant, shrink (employee wise), or go away if their labor costs go up.

You spout gak about accepting a 2% increase in costs of products you buy to support a higher minimum wage. Guess what? The folks with a new higher minimum wage also just got hit by the 2% increase in product costs. You just made costs go up and changed nothing but how good you feel about minimum wage having gone up.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Because starving sucks.

And?

So you would be okay if Gengis Connie ended up in such a situation?

That wouldn't happen though, 'cause he raised her with that good ol' Texas sense of what hard work was.

I'm not going there. Having been an oilpatch refugee, watching our house get repossessed before repossessions were cool, I can say been there, done that and got a fething belt buckle.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, when I was in high school, I gave money to my parents when my dad just lost his job. After college, I spent a good two months living out of my car. Years later, I'm doing quite well for myself.

I still think that the difference between me and someone forced to work 80 hours a week between several minimum wage jobs to make ends meet is sheer luck, and it terrifies me constantly.

I hear ya on that. A trained monkey could do my job. Fortunately, I am that trained monkey.

 whembly wrote:
Other than that visa debit card thing... which is a joke.

Why is it a bad thing the McD is offering budgeting tools?

Because the budget tool's answer to living on a McDonald's wage is to get another job. Which is basically McDonald's saying they know that a McWage, even at 40 hours a week isn't enough to live on.

And personally, I think 40 hours of work in any job should provide a decent enough standard of living.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
That extra money has to be made up somehow. Either the price is increased, Government has some sort of subsidy in place, or they have fewer employees. High wages, low prices, or fully staffed restaurants... pick two.

Yeah, as I already said, the price goes up. The rest of us pay a little more, and for that people making and serving our food get to earn a living wage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Why is it necessarily a bad thing to work two jobs (or more)?

There is nothing wrong with working two jobs. When he was fresh off the boat, my father in law worked two jobs, and kept doing so until the family home was paid off.

But the idea should be that working a second job is an option for people who want to get ahead fast. It shouldn't be a requirement just to keep level with your monthly expenses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Labor used to perform tasks has a value. If flipping burgers is worth 9 bucks an hour, artificially valuing it at 20 an hour will have ripple effects that are going to hurt the folks that rely on those jobs. You cannot get around that.

That only holds if we assume labour is automatically priced at its optimum value. Which any freshmen who slept through his Econs lectures should be able to tell you is a massive assumption that becomes almost fantasy when you look at the low end of the market.

For what it's worth, I did live on 40 hours minimum wage between two jobs.

Granted, that was living in a low income neighborhood in the only apartment building in the area that wasn't Section 8, without a car payment (I had a car that my girlfriend's mom gave me when my creepy creepo van died) , unable to pay on my student loans, and with a roommate.

I kept the lights on though. And I could afford to eat meals that had meat in them probably three times a week. Chili night when it had hamburger in it was always awesome.

 whembly wrote:
I get that... so how do you change that?

Best way is to better yourself and reflect on your expenses.

Yeah, but there's two different groups here. There's the individual, who as you rightly point out needs to realise that working minimum wage sucks, and do what he can to get some kind of qualification or foothold on the corporate ladder.

But the other group is society, who can look at the circumstances of people on the minimum wage, and ask if we really need all of our own wealth so much that we're comfortable with making people at the bottom working two jobs in order to break even each month. Or if maybe we might consider paying a little more for our Big Mac, if it meant the guy behind the counter only had to work 40 hours a week, and could spend the rest of the time attending college or a trade school. Or smoking dope and playing x-box, it's his life, so whatever. Point being, he's entitled to a life as much as anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As has been proven is several threads. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing to change the situation. it just shifts numbers around.

Moving the numbers around is changing the situation. It means the working poor have more money, and the rest have slightly less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why?

Seriously, they've done studies that identified empathy in babies as young as nine months. And yet here again Fraz is acting like he's completely unaware of the idea that people don't like seeing other people suffer.

Which leads me to conclude that Fraz is, at most, eight months old.

 CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:
[Long-winded error in thinking that "living well" equates to "living at all".]

Holier than thou "I care for humanity and you don't" nonsense with no grounding in economic reality....

Look at how the real world works. Show me how raising minimum wages does not end up hurting lower income people. Higher wages = less minimum wage jobs. Employers can only ever afford to eat too much of the pay raise before they cut. That cut is a person. Or more. Bigger companies outsource to other countries. Small companies very often stay stagnant, shrink (employee wise), or go away if their labor costs go up.

You spout gak about accepting a 2% increase in costs of products you buy to support a higher minimum wage. Guess what? The folks with a new higher minimum wage also just got hit by the 2% increase in product costs. You just made costs go up and changed nothing but how good you feel about minimum wage having gone up.

Like you get that things are more complex than that right? That the costs of goods and services are set by complex and somewhat malleable forces. For example the cost of a loaf bread isn't set by some direct ratio to the minimum wage you can pay someone in a bread factory. Particularly when that bread has raw materials supplied by and is distributed and consumed by a complex economic system.

Never mind the complexities of a business entity and how an increase in cost labor doesn't inherently mean fewer workers or proportionally higher prices. You may have minimum labor requirements, or there isn't a good point where you lose less profit from your cut production than you do keeping at the current pace or accelerating despite those costs. Similarly raising prices may cause a decrease in consumption that eats into your margins more than the increase in labor.

Things you mention can happen to some extent, under the right (even common) conditions. However the view you're putting forward is so grossly simplistic as to be worthless. You're looking at economics through lens that would be woefully inadequate to provide a conversational model for the average trading mini-game in a jRPG, let anyone anything even vaguely resembling even the most simplistic analogy of the real world.

 whembly wrote:
Isn't bootstrapping already policy? !

*looks at education system at all levels.

Public education is the exact opposite of bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. It's saying 'I used to work minimum wage for 72 hours a week, but then I wrote a phone app that made me a million dollars, using the programming skills I taught myself'.

It is, basically, a complete fething fantasy, and a major part of the reason that the US, despite it's dreams of a meritocracy where anyone can make something of themselves, has fallen behind the rest of the developed world in social mobility. Simply put, in the US if you are born to poor parents you are much, much more likely to end up poor, and in turn have kids who are also poor.

And if people can't see how the low minimum wage plays a massive part in that, well I just don't know what to say.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Isn't bootstrapping already policy? !

*looks at education system at all levels.

Public education is the exact opposite of bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. It's saying 'I used to work minimum wage for 72 hours a week, but then I wrote a phone app that made me a million dollars, using the programming skills I taught myself'.

It is, basically, a complete fething fantasy, and a major part of the reason that the US, despite it's dreams of a meritocracy where anyone can make something of themselves, has fallen behind the rest of the developed world in social mobility. Simply put, in the US if you are born to poor parents you are much, much more likely to end up poor, and in turn have kids who are also poor.

And if people can't see how the low minimum wage plays a massive part in that, well I just don't know what to say.

b..b..b..but but the free market!

 CptJake wrote:
If that was not the case, and a higher minimum wage is the answer to poverty, why go small? Why not make minimum wage something folks can really live off of? At 40 hours a week and a 50 week year (we get a couple for vacation, right) I think $200,000 a year should allow every one to live well right?

There are very smart people who collect all kinds of data and process it in all kinds of clever ways to figure out exactly what level of minimum wage the market can accept before you see a material effect on unemployment. Over here in Australia, as I already pointed out in this thread, we pay $16.37 an hour and it didn't lead to massive unemployment. The idea that the US couldn't tolerate a $12 or $13 minimum wage is frankly laughable.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I get that... so how do you change that?

Best way is to better yourself and reflect on your expenses.

Yeah, but there's two different groups here. There's the individual, who as you rightly point out needs to realise that working minimum wage sucks, and do what he can to get some kind of qualification or foothold on the corporate ladder.

But the other group is society, who can look at the circumstances of people on the minimum wage, and ask if we really need all of our own wealth so much that we're comfortable with making people at the bottom work two jobs in order to break even each month. Or if maybe we might consider paying a little more for our Big Mac, if it meant the guy behind the counter only had to work 40 hours a week, and could spend the rest of the time attending college or a trade school. Or smoking dope and playing x-box, it's his life, so whatever. Point being, he's entitled to a life as much as anyone else.

That right there Seb... is perception.

What you or I want in life, for what we think we need to be happy, isn't necessarily the same for some folks.

I know plenty of people, who works multiple part-time jobs (30-60 hr/week) who makes the best of their situation, and are happy.

I actually don't mind having conversations about raising the minimum wage... but it needs to be tempered so that it doesn't go overboard. Whenever minimum wage or living wage topic pops up... do you know which group squeaks the loudest? It's the UNION. At first glance, you'd ask why? Is it because from the goodness of their heart, they see it a good thing? That's possibly true... however, the truth is likely this: Most Union contracts link their negotiated hourly wages to the state's minimum wage. Therefore, if the state raises the minimum wage... the union shops automatically get a raise.

Now, that may NOT be necessarily a bad thing... it's just that, things don't always appear they way the do on the surface. There are ulterior motives going on here.

Now, back to the subject at hand. I was NOT given anything. I had to work hard to get where I'm at... I have to pay my school loans until after I retire as I didn't fit in any affirmative active category. Yes, when I was on my own, things were tough. I remember working 4 jobs at a time to make end meet on my own, while STILL attending school. There was a good chance that I may have to move to another state in order to "keep moving forward" in life. Those are NOT unique situations that I'm sure other dakkanauts will attest to. That's what I mean by "bootstraps". As for the inevitable cries that bootstrapping doesn't always work... my retort? Deal with it... adapt... overcome... as Sigvatr stated in another thread #dealwithit. Blaming your predictament on other things isn't going work. In the US, for those in true need of help... it's there.

There is a big difference between cost of living and Standard of living. Like a saying we have in the military. "You are a product of your environment". You change the environment you change the product. I do not view everyone as "product". Its interesting and a bit of a drag trying to change an individual who left a "questionable" environment to an environment that's regimentized (spelling)

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Isn't bootstrapping already policy? !

*looks at education system at all levels.

Public education is the exact opposite of bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. It's saying 'I used to work minimum wage for 72 hours a week, but then I wrote a phone app that made me a million dollars, using the programming skills I taught myself'.

It is, basically, a complete fething fantasy, and a major part of the reason that the US, despite it's dreams of a meritocracy where anyone can make something of themselves, has fallen behind the rest of the developed world in social mobility. Simply put, in the US if you are born to poor parents you are much, much more likely to end up poor, and in turn have kids who are also poor.

And if people can't see how the low minimum wage plays a massive part in that, well I just don't know what to say.

Erm... we may have different ideas of what "bootstrapping" really means.

We will ALWAYS have this issue with folks trying to break through that being "born to poor family, you'll likely be stuck in the poor bracket". I mean, c'mon seb, that's fething common sense. It's life... it's NOT unique to America.

So, again... what recommendation do *you* have?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If that was not the case, and a higher minimum wage is the answer to poverty, why go small? Why not make minimum wage something folks can really live off of? At 40 hours a week and a 50 week year (we get a couple for vacation, right) I think $200,000 a year should allow every one to live well right?

There are very smart people who collect all kinds of data and process it in all kinds of clever ways to figure out exactly what level of minimum wage the market can accept before you see a material effect on unemployment. Over here in Australia, as I already pointed out in this thread, we pay $16.37 an hour and it didn't lead to massive unemployment. The idea that the US couldn't tolerate a $12 or $13 minimum wage is frankly laughable.

There's just one problem with that right now...

We're no where near full employment. Wouldn't making that sort of change now be problematic now?

The one and only time I left the US Military due to burn out (before the wars) I worked in Central Processing in a major hospital starting at 15 dollars an hour. Year later I went to SurgTech school and pretty much became a certified Surgical Technician making 1$9.75 an hour. Three days later after receiving my diploma I was heading down to Ft Eutis, VA learning to become a 88N Movement Coordinator. I could have said no but that sense of duty ingrained in me.....oh and the Army knew they we're screwing me but paid for the entire school itself. Still though making over 1300 every two weeks wasn't bad at all. Then I was making close to 5K tax free on my first deployment. Only three days of month that shines. The 1st, 3rd and the 15th were paid days (3rd was was being refunded back on federal taxes)

Still though we need to change the "environment" of the low income families

 sebster wrote:
The idea that the US couldn't tolerate a $12 or $13 minimum wage is frankly laughable.

Yeah... that shouldn't be a problem... *shrugs* I think we already have a couple of states over the $9.00 threshold...

Actually, only one state over $9, Washington State... http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/state-minimum-wage/

Well... DC tried to impose a minimum wage of $12.50 for any companies making over a billion a year (obviously targeting Walmart)... Walmart was scheduled to open 3 stores in the more impoverish areas... after this passed, Walmart said "no mas" and canceled the expansion plans.

Considering the pay gap between the highest and lowest level employees in America, I'm pretty sure a little bit of restructuring wouldn't hurt the guys up top that much. When you're making $12m a year, I'm pretty sure that after the first few millions, it's mostly just for show.

 whembly wrote:
That right there Seb... is perception.

What you or I want in life, for what we think we need to be happy, isn't necessarily the same for some folks.

I know plenty of people, who works multiple part-time jobs (30-60 hr/week) who makes the best of their situation, and are happy.

And surely they'd be happier still if they earned an extra $1 an hour?

Now, that may NOT be necessarily a bad thing... it's just that, things don't always appear they way the do on the surface. There are ulterior motives going on here.

Absolutely, it's politics and there are always lots of insider groups playing the system for their own benefit. But none of that changes the basic

Now, back to the subject at hand. I was NOT given anything. I had to work hard to get where I'm at... I have to pay my school loans until after I retire as I didn't fit in any affirmative active category. Yes, when I was on my own, things were tough. I remember working 4 jobs at a time to make end meet on my own, while STILL attending school. There was a good chance that I may have to move to another state in order to "keep moving forward" in life. Those are NOT unique situations that I'm sure other dakkanauts will attest to. That's what I mean by "bootstraps". As for the inevitable cries that bootstrapping doesn't always work... my retort? Deal with it... adapt... overcome... as Sigvatr stated in another thread #dealwithit. Blaming your predictament on other things isn't going work. In the US, for those in true need of help... it's there.

 Fafnir wrote:
Considering the pay gap between the highest and lowest level employees in America, I'm pretty sure a little bit of restructuring wouldn't hurt the guys up top that much.

Eh... the best way imo is to address it in the tax codes.hi

1) Close all fething tax subsidies, rebate, loopholes, deduction, whateve. If you're in that highest bracket, which is 39.6%... then you taxed at 39.6%.
2) Redefine what is income... it should include all sources (capital gains, inheritence, all-of-it)
3) Voila, tax returns should be fitted on one sheet of paper! w00t! We now have time to go to fajita night at Frazzled's place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That right there Seb... is perception.

What you or I want in life, for what we think we need to be happy, isn't necessarily the same for some folks.

I know plenty of people, who works multiple part-time jobs (30-60 hr/week) who makes the best of their situation, and are happy.

And surely they'd be happier still if they earned an extra $1 an hour?

Sure that's possible... But, is it our responsibility to facilitate this happiest? See where I'm getting at? Living a life is not the same as ensuring everyone be happy.

 sebster wrote:

that if we keep 10% of the working population in near poverty, well then most of them will never climb any higher and will have pretty tough lives. But if we can ensure they're paid a decent wage, well then significantly more will have the time and resources to get a better qualification, and the rest will at least have more comfortable lives.

You make it sound like that's done on purpose. (in yellow). Sure there's always room for improvement... but, the sense I'm getting on this thread is that things are out of hand. Which is what I'm objecting to here.

We have VERY good safety nets to help those in need... and, even those who abuses it, ie the SNAP program:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/27/the-facts-about-food-stamps-everyone-should-hear/
An average of $668 per month! o.O That's way more I pay for my grocery (house hold of 2 adults and 2 squigs)

For the record, I'm in favor of keeping these things... just wished there are robust mechanisms to prevent abuses. But, I'd take these level of abuses so that those in need truly get what the help the need.

 whembly wrote:
Erm... we may have different ideas of what "bootstrapping" really means.

We will ALWAYS have this issue with folks trying to break through that being "born to poor family, you'll likely be stuck in the poor bracket". I mean, c'mon seb, that's fething common sense. It's life... it's NOT unique to America.

So, again... what recommendation do *you* have?

Yeah, the parents income will always have an affect on the children's income. The issue is only how much we can reduce that impact.

And no, it isn't unique to America. I didn't say it was. I said it was worse in America, and that's pretty bad considering just a couple of generations ago the US had the best social mobility of any country in the world. It used to be that how much money your parents had mattered less in America than anywhere else in the world. If you born in to absolute poverty but you worked hard you had a better chance of getting ahead in America than anywhere else in the world. But that is no longer the case, and in fact now your parent's income is a stronger determinant of your income than in almost any other country in the developed world.

That should be seen as a problem by anyone who believes in bootstraps, and people being able to make something of themselves, no matter what they came from.

Reversing that trend is difficult, for sure. But there's a few things that can be done that will change it massively within a generation. The first is to make the minimum wage enough to give a decent life on 40 hours a week. That gives people time to study and move in to a better job, or time to raise their kids, so those kids are better prepared and more likely to make something of themselves.

The second thing that would need to be changed is to raise the standard of education among the poorer schools. But that'd require a whole new model of funding (moving it away from local revenue sources and to state or federal funding, to make each school more equitably funded).

There's just one problem with that right now...

We're no where near full employment. Wouldn't making that sort of change now be problematic now?

But at the minimum wage you've got right now it's likely to have no effect on employment. I mean, I haven't seen the US numbers but your economy is not that different to our own, and the modelling here said there was little impact to employment for our $16.37 minimum wage, and that's been shown to be pretty solid as there's been no drag on our employment numbers.

In fact, there's a bit of scope to argue that an increase to minimum wage might have a stimulus effect in your current economic circumstances. Basically given the depressed demand you wouldn't see much price inflation, so the increased wages would basically be a hit straight to the business owners, who are otherwise largely sitting on the profits and not reinvesting them, whereas in the hands of the workers that money would almost certainly be respent (but that's just stuff I've read elsewhere in a lot more detail, can't find now, and is way beyond my pay grade to repeat accurately, let alone assess if it might actually be true).

 sebster wrote:


That should be seen as a problem by anyone who believes in bootstraps, and people being able to make something of themselves, no matter what they came from.

I'm sorry, but I believe anyone can "bootstraps" themselves out... maybe it's because I was one of them and my own anecdotal evidence supports that. *shrugs* I can be wrong... maybe my sunglasses are too rosy. *shrugs*

Reversing that trend is difficult, for sure. But there's a few things that can be done that will change it massively within a generation. The first is to make the minimum wage enough to give a decent life on 40 hours a week. That gives people time to study and move in to a better job, or time to raise their kids, so those kids are better prepared and more likely to make something of themselves.

Well that's all good... but you could be working part-time (or not work) and be on government help.
Need help to rent/buy house? Go here... http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/rental_assistance
Need help with food? Go here... http://dss.mo.gov/fsd/fstamp/
Need help with education? Go here... http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Benefits.shtml
Need help with daycare? Go here... http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/ccdf-grantee-state-and-territory-contacts#M
How 'bout a cell phone? Go here... http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/
Energy Assistance? Go here... http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/browse-by-category/category/ENA
Programs for single moms? We have it in spades...
And on...and on...

The point is, the infrastructure is there for the taking. It's the WILL is generally the issue. We can argue whether its not working well or what we can do to tweak it... but, it's not for lack of trying.

The second thing that would need to be changed is to raise the standard of education among the poorer schools. But that'd require a whole new model of funding (moving it away from local revenue sources and to state or federal funding, to make each school more equitably funded).

I agree whole-heartedly about that. And stop the standardize testing linkage to funding.... the classic unintended consequent scenario.

There's just one problem with that right now...

We're no where near full employment. Wouldn't making that sort of change now be problematic now?

But at the minimum wage you've got right now it's likely to have no effect on employment. I mean, I haven't seen the US numbers but your economy is not that different to our own, and the modelling here said there was little impact to employment for our $16.37 minimum wage, and that's been shown to be pretty solid as there's been no drag on our employment numbers.

In fact, there's a bit of scope to argue that an increase to minimum wage might have a stimulus effect in your current economic circumstances. Basically given the depressed demand you wouldn't see much price inflation, so the increased wages would basically be a hit straight to the business owners, who are otherwise largely sitting on the profits and not reinvesting them, whereas in the hands of the workers that money would almost certainly be respent (but that's just stuff I've read elsewhere in a lot more detail, can't find now, and is way beyond my pay grade to repeat accurately, let alone assess if it might actually be true).

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As has been proven is several threads. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing to change the situation. it just shifts numbers around.

Moving the numbers around is changing the situation. It means the working poor have more money, and the rest have slightly less.

So your answer to the poor having it bad is to make everyone else worse off so the poor have a couple extra bucks to spend at McDs?

Sorry, but I'm not buying that crap.

Because nobody needs anything as long as I got mine.

 whembly wrote:
I'm sorry, but I believe anyone can "bootstraps" themselves out... maybe it's because I was one of them and my own anecdotal evidence supports that. *shrugs* I can be wrong... maybe my sunglasses are too rosy. *shrugs*

Maybe everyone can, but I don't really think what can happen is a good guy for policy. What matters is what does happen, and we know that bootstrapping happens less in the US. I mean, I can get the numbers if you want, but basically there is less of it in your country than elsewhere in the developed world. Now, either that's because the poor in the US are somehow inherently lazier than elsewhere, or because it is much harder for a person to pull themselves up there than elsewhere in the world.

For a country that used to pride itself on being the land of opportunity, I would have thought you'd want to return to that being true.

The point is, the infrastructure is there for the taking. It's the WILL is generally the issue. We can argue whether its not working well or what we can do to tweak it... but, it's not for lack of trying.

Yes, there is aid. But it isn't as much aid as you see in other developed countries. And when you put that on top of the very low minimum wage, the end result is that it is much, much harder to get out of the bottom deciles in the US than elsewhere in the world.

I agree whole-heartedly about that. And stop the standardize testing linkage to funding.... the classic unintended consequent scenario.

Oh absolutely. Can you believe that Australia is rolling out our own standardised testing model. I mean, in the US it was probably always a bad idea, but at least it wasn't a proven failure when you started the program. But now we're copying it... incredible.

Eh... even if that was true, in the current political enviroment and the sheer number of lobbying groups... I seriously doubt this would happen here.

Definitely true. Especially because the poor don't vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So your answer to the poor having it bad is to make everyone else worse off so the poor have a couple extra bucks to spend at McDs?

Sorry, but I'm not buying that crap.

Umm, yeah, my answer to improving the living standards of the lowest paid is to pay them more, and have everyone else cover that by paying slightly higher prices.

And it isn't my answer. It's been pretty much standard policy across the world for the better part of a century. The only sensible debate is on how much the minimum should be.

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:
[Long-winded error in thinking that "living well" equates to "living at all".]

Holier than thou "I care for humanity and you don't" nonsense with no grounding in economic reality....

Look at how the real world works. Show me how raising minimum wages does not end up hurting lower income people. Higher wages = less minimum wage jobs. Employers can only ever afford to eat too much of the pay raise before they cut. That cut is a person. Or more. Bigger companies outsource to other countries. Small companies very often stay stagnant, shrink (employee wise), or go away if their labor costs go up.

You spout gak about accepting a 2% increase in costs of products you buy to support a higher minimum wage. Guess what? The folks with a new higher minimum wage also just got hit by the 2% increase in product costs. You just made costs go up and changed nothing but how good you feel about minimum wage having gone up.

Chongara has already pointed out the lack of understanding and value in what you've expressed here far more eloquently than I would have. So I'll merely leave you with this: the concept of a minimum labour require defeats everything you just said, and that minimum labour requirement is something that even the most pedestrian understanding of the workplace would include. So I'm almost curious how your "understanding" has managed to omit it.

The very concept of "higher wages = less jobs" is, for lack of a more eloquent term, stupid. In order to actually believe that tripe, you have to first hold a foundational erroneous belief that an employer views labour costs as anything other than a necessary expense that would never be paid if it didn't absolutely need to be. No employer creates jobs our of the goodness of their heart; they create jobs based on their absolute necessity to do so. The cost of wages does not factor into what the minimum amount of labour required to perform a task is.

d-usa wrote:Because nobody needs anything as long as I got mine.

I beat ya by almost two pages on that one.

That's what they get for being poor! They're just asking to get poorer! Blame the victim!

 azazel the cat wrote:


The very concept of "higher wages = less jobs" is, for lack of a more eloquent term, stupid. In order to actually believe that tripe, you have to first hold a foundational erroneous belief that an employer views labour costs as anything other than a necessary expense that would never be paid if it didn't absolutely need to be. No employer creates jobs our of the goodness of their heart; they create jobs based on their absolute necessity to do so. The cost of wages does not factor into what the minimum amount of labour required to perform a task is.

Not really.


If I currently employ 3 people, but minimum wage goes up 10%, what I am likely to do is lay-off one person and pay the remaining 2 employees, say, 20% more to do the work of 3 people.

I just reduced wage cost by 20% with the same output. And my 2 remaining workers are happy because they got a 20% pay raise.

Your view only works if the job in question cannot be done with less workers than it is now.


Raising minimum wages encourages employers to do things like this. Cut out unnecessary employees.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm sorry, but I believe anyone can "bootstraps" themselves out... maybe it's because I was one of them and my own anecdotal evidence supports that. *shrugs* I can be wrong... maybe my sunglasses are too rosy. *shrugs*

Maybe everyone can, but I don't really think what can happen is a good guy for policy. What matters is what does happen, and we know that bootstrapping happens less in the US. I mean, I can get the numbers if you want, but basically there is less of it in your country than elsewhere in the developed world. Now, either that's because the poor in the US are somehow inherently lazier than elsewhere, or because it is much harder for a person to pull themselves up there than elsewhere in the world.

For a country that used to pride itself on being the land of opportunity, I would have thought you'd want to return to that being true.

I simply don't think raising the minimum wage would "fix" this. I think there's a larger issue here at stake that is generational. I believe (and I know I'm going to get hammered on this) that the biggest culprit is simply the lack of self responsibility and/or the belief that "You CAN do it!" mindset is sorely lacking. That is, we've become a coddled, pampered, instant gratification, society that puts the proverbial handcuffs on most of us... and we generally ask WHO can help us in our need... whereas the right question is, what can I do to be better? This is something I'm really cognizant of when I'm teaching my boys...

The point is, the infrastructure is there for the taking. It's the WILL is generally the issue. We can argue whether its not working well or what we can do to tweak it... but, it's not for lack of trying.

Yes, there is aid. But it isn't as much aid as you see in other developed countries. And when you put that on top of the very low minimum wage, the end result is that it is much, much harder to get out of the bottom deciles in the US than elsewhere in the world.

Grey Templar wrote:Your view only works if the job in question cannot be done with less workers than it is now.

I'm glad you see my point, then. Because at the low-end of the job market, there are no jobs that operate above the skeleton crew.

Look at any fast food joint, or retail store. Count the number of employees on shift at any given time. That is the exact minimum number of employees required in order to get the work done. Maybe not even enough to get it all done.

And that is why the belief that there will ever be more low-end jobs if the jobs cost less in wages is a complete fabrication.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I currently employ 3 people, but minimum wage goes up 10%, what I am likely to do is lay-off one person and pay the remaining 2 employees, say, 20% more to do the work of 3 people.

I just reduced wage cost by 20% with the same output. And my 2 remaining workers are happy because they got a 20% pay raise.

Your view only works if the job in question cannot be done with less workers than it is now.


Raising minimum wages encourages employers to do things like this. Cut out unnecessary employees.

Your example is non-sensical. First up, paying someone 20% more doesn't make them clean tables 20% faster. Second up, every business is in the process of cutting unnecessary employees. Having businesses motivated to find and cut surplus resources is basically the whole fething point of capitalism.

How it actually works is that, basically, a restaraunt needs clean tables. Having someone do that job and take out the bins and cover for the dishwasher when he's on his break costs the restaraunt minimum wage each hour. If minimum wage goes up by a $1 an hour, well you still need someone to clean tables etc.. and so for the eight hour shift you pay that person an extra $8. The business wears that cost because it still needs that job done, and depending on the state of the industry and level of competition, some portion of the extra wage cost will make its way in to the cost of a meal, while the rest is to be borne by the business owner.

Now, if minimum wage increases by too much then you start seeing businesses saying 'it costs too much to run a restaraunt section, and so we'll relocate and just become a take out store only' and other similar cost cutting measures. But, as I've now said many times, countries all over the world sustain minimum wages miles higher than yours (here it's over $16) without seeing any real impact on employment numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I simply don't think raising the minimum wage would "fix" this. I think there's a larger issue here at stake that is generational. I believe (and I know I'm going to get hammered on this) that the biggest culprit is simply the lack of self responsibility and/or the belief that "You CAN do it!" mindset is sorely lacking. That is, we've become a coddled, pampered, instant gratification, society that puts the proverbial handcuffs on most of us... and we generally ask WHO can help us in our need... whereas the right question is, what can I do to be better? This is something I'm really cognizant of when I'm teaching my boys...

To the extent that US is full of coddled, pampered people seeking instant gratification, the rest of the developed world is too. And yet social mobility elsewhere isn't getting worse.

Eh... I find that to be a very broad statement because the standard of living (among others) ought to be incorporated in those sorts of analysis... and that's almost impossible because it's really subjective. You know me with damned statistics

But we're talking about the developed world. Living standards in Japan, France, New Zealand and the United States aren't identical, but they're close enough that they can't really impact on this analysis.

Yeesh... sorry. Hopefully the adminstrations/reviews are keep closer to the localities then here in the States.

Unfortunately, they're Federalising the whole thing. Total fething disaster coming...

Erm...wut? o.O They do vote...

Granted, they don't have the influences as those with large checkbooks.

No really. The poor have really, really low participation rates.

Yes, but instead of having, say, 5 wait staff they cut down to 4. Or maybe 3.

And with facilities that are already barebones you only ensure that they will remain that. There is no incentive for expansion or more hiring.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but instead of having, say, 5 wait staff they cut down to 4. Or maybe 3.

And with facilities that are already barebones you only ensure that they will remain that. There is no incentive for expansion or more hiring.

And they already have no incentive to hire or pay more. Or else they would not be bare bone staffing at minimum wage.

The market has spoken, and it has said "screw the worker".

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but instead of having, say, 5 wait staff they cut down to 4. Or maybe 3.

No, they won't, and I just explained why. Don't just keep repeating a basic summary of your argument.

Anyhow, to repeat - paying the remaining staff 20% more doesn't make them clean tables 20% faster and get the job done. And if it did, the company would just have done that in the first place, because finding a way to get the job done for less money spent is the whole fething point of capitalism.

And with facilities that are already barebones you only ensure that they will remain that. There is no incentive for expansion or more hiring.

If expansion is viable opportunity then it's unlikely that a minimum wage $1 an hour higher will change that. After all, I don't know if you've ever been outside the US, but we have restaurants all over the place, and a much higher minimum wage.

America is different and unique and nothing that ever works anywhere else could actually work here.

 d-usa wrote:
America is different and unique and nothing that ever works anywhere else could actually work here.

Except for made up things like UK healthcare rationing or the steady collapse of France under its welfare system. Whenever there's made up stories about how terrible things are elsewhere then the obvious reaction is to never, ever do anything like that.

 d-usa wrote:
America is different and unique and nothing that ever works anywhere else could actually work here.

I'm stealing that for my signature. Have an exalt as well.


For the record, the minimum wage (which isn't a minimum wage per se, but whatever) for rookie restaurant workers in Sweden is $19 an hour. Let that sink in for a while, and then consider that Sweden went relatively unscathed through the GFC (not saying we didn't take a hit, but we're much better off than most of Europe).

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but instead of having, say, 5 wait staff they cut down to 4. Or maybe 3.

And with facilities that are already barebones you only ensure that they will remain that. There is no incentive for expansion or more hiring.

Ethical argumentation aside, you have a very bizare view of economics that completely fails to take into account how money moves around.

I mean, even if we went with the presumption that all these budget businesses would somehow find ways of reducing staffing levels even further, the fact that the remaining staff would earn more would still impact on the economy positively. By earning more, they'd have more to spend on services and luxury products themselves, which would in turn create jobs (which could quite reasonably be filled by the people who would have otherwise been employed at the first place).

Economics is an extremely complicated science, and never has black/white impacts.

But the fact that a goodly number of first world nations have livable minimum wages and comparable level of unemployment to the US? It indicates through a basic application of logic that the two are not particularly related at this level, and that making a minimum wage a living wage does not result in a massive boost to unemployment.

He won't listen.

He's heard the fairytale of the Welfare Queen too many times.

I fear this one is already lost.

What's the point of a living minimum wage if all those other countries don't have FREEDOM!

 d-usa wrote:
What's the point of a living minimum wage if all those other countries don't have FREEDOM!

I think your 'freedom' needs more exclamation marks and letters alternating between red, white and blue. I suspect you don't love America enough, citizen.

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What's the point of a living minimum wage if all those other countries don't have:

!!!FREEDOM!!!

I think your 'freedom' needs more exclamation marks and letters alternating between red, white and blue. I suspect you don't love America enough, citizen.

Sorry...

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What's the point of a living minimum wage if all those other countries don't have:

!!!FREEDOM!!!

I think your 'freedom' needs more exclamation marks and letters alternating between red, white and blue. I suspect you don't love America enough, citizen.

Sorry...

Now that's a man who loves his country

Not to play the man rather than the ball, but Grey Templar, aren't you a fairly devout christian?
Jesus was all about helping the poor and had a healthy disdain for rich people who hoard their wealth.

How do you square that with the circle of your disdain for any kind of programs to help the poor past the basic ones already in place? This always fascinates me because I've seen a lot of it from hardcore christians in the US, but not at all as much from hardcore christians in other places I've lived.

 Da Boss wrote:
Not to play the man rather than the ball, but Grey Templar, aren't you a fairly devout christian?
Jesus was all about helping the poor and had a healthy disdain for rich people who hoard their wealth.

How do you square that with the circle of your disdain for any kind of programs to help the poor past the basic ones already in place? This always fascinates me because I've seen a lot of it from hardcore christians in the US, but not at all as much from hardcore christians in other places I've lived.

It's the slightly strange Protestant work ethic concept that is prevalent in the US. The idea is that people should help themselves with hard work, but is used to justify not helping the poor and that people in low paid jobs are there not because of failings in society, business or education but that they choose to be there and that if they work harder they will not.

Also the capitalist idea that every market is a free market, which is not the case.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think more then two jobs may be bad for your health. But two jobs isnt bad. What is bad is telling people in order to live on their wage, go get another job. It is like Wal-Mart having a Welfare office in every store for its employees.

How so? I wasn't happy with my standard of living provided by one job, so I work two jobs. The real tragedy here is that people who have >1 job are taxed more heavily than those with a single job. That is a fething tragedy - you work harder, so they tax you harder.

There are many retired executives in the UK who work several jobs as non-executive directors.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That is a fething tragedy - you work harder, so they tax you harder.

Just imagine how you are going to feel when you realize that there are people that don't work hard at all, make far more, and are taxed far more, though probably at a smaller percent after tax shelters and things like that.

 azazel the cat wrote:
He won't listen.

He's heard the fairytale of the Welfare Queen too many times.

I fear this one is already lost.

Didn't you hear that the one congressmen was able to feed himself on his food stamps?
nevermind he didn't account for any non food costs, or that the diet would kill him in a few years

 Ahtman wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That is a fething tragedy - you work harder, so they tax you harder.

Just imagine how you are going to feel when you realize that there are people that don't work hard at all, make far more, and are taxed far more, though probably at a smaller percent after tax shelters and things like that.

I was told that we should treasure those people, because they create jobs and allow us to work for them, so they're generous and humane individuals.

Indeed, just swell humanists.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but instead of having, say, 5 wait staff they cut down to 4. Or maybe 3.

No, they won't, and I just explained why. Don't just keep repeating a basic summary of your argument.

Anyhow, to repeat - paying the remaining staff 20% more doesn't make them clean tables 20% faster and get the job done. And if it did, the company would just have done that in the first place, because finding a way to get the job done for less money spent is the whole fething point of capitalism.

And with facilities that are already barebones you only ensure that they will remain that. There is no incentive for expansion or more hiring.

If expansion is viable opportunity then it's unlikely that a minimum wage $1 an hour higher will change that. After all, I don't know if you've ever been outside the US, but we have restaurants all over the place, and a much higher minimum wage.

They don't have to clean the tables 20% faster. They could even be slightly slower compared to what they were with more people on staff.

but if the reduction in speed is acceptable compared to the savings in salary then they will do it.


You are assuming the employer will make no compromise in expectations. This is nonsensical.

Think the notion or implied threat to fire someone has a tendency to pick up one production. One person = clean 20 tables in under 20 min can happen

 Da Boss wrote:
Not to play the man rather than the ball, but Grey Templar, aren't you a fairly devout christian?
Jesus was all about helping the poor and had a healthy disdain for rich people who hoard their wealth.

How do you square that with the circle of your disdain for any kind of programs to help the poor past the basic ones already in place? This always fascinates me because I've seen a lot of it from hardcore christians in the US, but not at all as much from hardcore christians in other places I've lived.

Sure, but taking care of the poor is the individual responsibility. Not the government.

And being rich doesn't make you a bad person. Being someone who loves their money does.

The rich have to be given the choice between helping those less fortunate then themselves, or not helping. You can't and shouldn't force charity.


How would you like it if there was a mandated 10% taken out of your paycheck to fund the local food bank/homeless shelter/orphanage/etc... You have no say where that money goes. Maybe you want it to go to the local homeless shelter, but instead it gets shuffled out of state where someone in a government office decided the need is greater.

And what prevents the government from using that money for other things instead of what they were supposedly earmarked for?

 Grey Templar wrote:

You are assuming the employer will make no compromise in expectations. This is nonsensical.

I agree. It is nonsensical when employers make no compromise in expectations.

I find it constantly happening.

One of our teams in our support center here had half the people jump ship (which should be an interesting warning indicator of its own). Rather than backfill those positions, even after given sufficient call data to rationalize why they needed it, people now handle about twice the calls, clients have twice the wait, any issue below a business critical (clients threatening to cancel) gets disregarded in favor of taking care of the ones that are, and their manager is in hot water because he can't "make them work harder".

Meanwhile, I myself have been "promoted" from doing high level technical work to designing internal websites that do not add value compared with working on outstanding client issues. I have no background in graphic design and I'm colorblind on top of that.

Perhaps I'm in a strange place, but I find every day a matter of waking up and finding out what bizarre non-negotiable expectations are being thrust upon me.

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What's the point of a living minimum wage if all those other countries don't have:

!!!FREEDOM!!!

I think your 'freedom' needs more exclamation marks and letters alternating between red, white and blue. I suspect you don't love America enough, citizen.

Sorry...

Yup... Sigged

It is a weird situation and counter-intuitive, but it is what happens and should be taken into account. Which many people simply do not.

Daedalus be sure to use lots of fusia and day glow orange.

 Frazzled wrote:
Daedalus be sure to use ots of fusia and day glow orange.

The sick thing is that day glow orange is actually one of our corporate colors. :(

That explains so much...

Ours uses "my eyes! it burns!!!" red and white.

 daedalus wrote:
Meanwhile, I myself have been "promoted" from doing high level technical work to designing internal websites that do not add value compared with working on outstanding client issues. I have no background in graphic design and I'm colorblind on top of that.

Perhaps I'm in a strange place, but I find every day a matter of waking up and finding out what bizarre non-negotiable expectations are being thrust upon me.

Make sure there are kittens and lensflare on everything!

Kind of curious how they expect people to work 2 jobs when it seems as though they are not flexible with their schedules at all.

Know some people who worked at McDonald's and never had a fixed scheduled to be able to coordinated with another job.

there are 6 Mcdonalds within a 1.1 mile radius of me (shameful I know).

There is always a help wanted sign on their doors. All of them have "Must be available all hours."

Well the schedule is for when you quit McDonalds...

 rubiksnoob wrote:
That's what they get for being poor! They're just asking to get poorer! Blame the victim!

hahahahahahahahahaha


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well the schedule is for when you quit McDonalds...

as a result for pissing in the food?

The main problem with I have with a lot of the arguments against the minimum wage is the simple fact that upwards mobility in the US is dying out, and at the same time the wealth gap is gaping wider and wider. Long-term I see a future for America not unlike that envisioned in the satirical novel Snowcrash, a future in which the #1 source of employment is the low-wage service industry and people go to college to get degrees in burger flipping(I did say it was satire). The last 2 generations grew up in an age that was comparatively full of opportunities for moving up the social/economic ladder. The same is not true today. I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee already...

And don't get me started on the fact that most minimum wage workers are in college and have to pay for books and tuition and the myriad other costs associated with getting an education that will probably land you in a marginally-better or worse paying job than what your parents had...

~Tim?

 Piston Honda wrote:
Kind of curious how they expect people to work 2 jobs when it seems as though they are not flexible with their schedules at all.

Know some people who worked at McDonald's and never had a fixed scheduled to be able to coordinated with another job.

there are 6 Mcdonalds within a 1.1 mile radius of me (shameful I know).

There is always a help wanted sign on their doors. All of them have "Must be available all hours."

Look just because those people can't figure out how to be in more than one place at the same time, doesn't mean we should reward them. If "Available at all hours" is what the market demands, than it's what the worker must provide! Simply calling the JOB CREATOR "not flexible" doesn't do anything helpful, the workers should learn to think outside of the box so the scheduling works for them. That's innovating, and America rewards innovators. You're just proving that minimum wage earners don't have the intelligence and drive of the top earners.

Good one Chongara.

 daedalus wrote:


One of our teams in our support center here had half the people jump ship (which should be an interesting warning indicator of its own). Rather than backfill those positions, even after given sufficient call data to rationalize why they needed it, people now handle about twice the calls, clients have twice the wait, any issue below a business critical (clients threatening to cancel) gets disregarded in favor of taking care of the ones that are, and their manager is in hot water because he can't "make them work harder".

So?
Trying to cut costs for short term gains to make yourself look good to be promoted and let the next guy fix the problem(s) or jump ship with your stock options is the american way. The best way of gaining upwards mobility is burning the ladders you used so there is less competition.
why do you hate america?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
The main problem with I have with a lot of the arguments against the minimum wage is the simple fact that upwards mobility in the US is dying out, and at the same time the wealth gap is gaping wider and wider. Long-term I see a future for America not unlike that envisioned in the satirical novel Snowcrash, a future in which the #1 source of employment is the low-wage service industry and people go to college to get degrees in burger flipping(I did say it was satire). The last 2 generations grew up in an age that was comparatively full of opportunities for moving up the social/economic ladder. The same is not true today. I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee already...

Yeah... pretty much.

When was the last time you got a job just by "getting your resume out there"?

When was the last time that job actually paid enough for you to be able to buy a home, raise three kids, and not worry about making ends meet?

 Piston Honda wrote:
Kind of curious how they expect people to work 2 jobs when it seems as though they are not flexible with their schedules at all.

Know some people who worked at McDonald's and never had a fixed scheduled to be able to coordinated with another job.

there are 6 Mcdonalds within a 1.1 mile radius of me (shameful I know).

There is always a help wanted sign on their doors. All of them have "Must be available all hours."

QFT. Food service jobs rarely have set hours, so it's hard to even pull up such an exact budget. Hours get cut and shifted by scheduling managers to reward and punish workers for a range of explicit or implicit reasons. Working two full-time service jobs is nearly impossible unless both of your scheduling managers really, really like you.

I'm disturbed by the number of *BOOT-STRAPS* proclamations in this thread but then Libertarianism has always been inextricably linked with white privilege.

Anyone claiming they've modeled the effects of raising the minimum wage on the economy is a fool and knows nothing about the field of economics. Micro-economic models are more or less a complete joke. The real-world constraints on the movement of goods and services, not to mention information, makes predicting the distribution of anything on a large scale infinitely complex. Math =/= the real world (just breathe nerds); it's just too big and there are too many unknowns when you get people involved.

Yes, if you raise the minimum wage, some companies will move jobs somewhere else for cheaper labor. China recently lost MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs that moved to cheaper India or Sub-Saharan Africa. Paying 3 dollars a day was just too much for these poor companies to take. So obviously the best solution is to always try and undercut your neighbor where wages and taxes apply because that's what leads to prosperity...

It doesn't make any sense to hold companies generally accountable for such practices and demand world standards in payment and labor rights. Certainly many of these companies aren't sitting on trillions of dollars in capital reserves, so there is no way they could pay their employees more without having it affect their pricing significantly...

And don't get me started on Unions. It's as if they just manifested out of nowhere to suckle on the plump tits of entrepreneurial industry. There is absolutely no historical documentation that points towards the tendency of corporate entities and managerial culture to be as abusive of their employees as possible.

In all seriousness, fast-food jobs are hard. They are not difficult exactly, but they wear you down. Working 15-25 hours a week in school is not the same as working 40 hours a week or more year round. I've run the gamut from bust-my-ass minimum wage jobs to I-can't-believe-how-much-they-pay-me tech jobs. Working in an office is easier, people treat you better, and employers are almost always more flexible.

The minimum wage should be higher to reflect not only the difficulty of the job (rather being depressed by the glut of cheap labor) but also common decency and humanity. The most insidious aspect of this whole debate are the boot-strappers whose union bashing arguments essentially boil down to "I dealt with x terrible things for y amount of time but now I'm a Millionaire!" Rather than asking why things had to be so gakky and trying to work to improve the system, they try to impose its harsh realities on others. It's classic divide and conquer.

Purple Saturday wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:
Kind of curious how they expect people to work 2 jobs when it seems as though they are not flexible with their schedules at all.

Know some people who worked at McDonald's and never had a fixed scheduled to be able to coordinated with another job.

there are 6 Mcdonalds within a 1.1 mile radius of me (shameful I know).

There is always a help wanted sign on their doors. All of them have "Must be available all hours."

QFT. Food service jobs rarely have set hours, so it's hard to even pull up such an exact budget. Hours get cut and shifted by scheduling managers to reward and punish workers for a range of explicit or implicit reasons. Working two full-time service jobs is nearly impossible unless both of your scheduling managers really, really like you.

I'm disturbed by the number of *BOOT-STRAPS* proclamations in this thread but then Libertarianism has always been inextricably linked with white privilege.

Anyone claiming they've modeled the effects of raising the minimum wage on the economy is a fool and knows nothing about the field of economics. Micro-economic models are more or less a complete joke. The real-world constraints on the movement of goods and services, not to mention information, makes predicting the distribution of anything on a large scale infinitely complex. Math =/= the real world (just breathe nerds); it's just too big and there are too many unknowns when you get people involved.

Yes, if you raise the minimum wage, some companies will move jobs somewhere else for cheaper labor. China recently lost MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs that moved to cheaper India or Sub-Saharan Africa. Paying 3 dollars a day was just too much for these poor companies to take. So obviously the best solution is to always try and undercut your neighbor where wages and taxes apply because that's what leads to prosperity...

It doesn't make any sense to hold companies generally accountable for such practices and demand world standards in payment and labor rights. Certainly many of these companies aren't sitting on trillions of dollars in capital reserves, so there is no way they could pay their employees more without having it affect their pricing significantly...

And don't get me started on Unions. It's as if they just manifested out of nowhere to suckle on the plump tits of entrepreneurial industry. There is absolutely no historical documentation that points towards the tendency of corporate entities and managerial culture to be as abusive of their employees as possible.

In all seriousness, fast-food jobs are hard. They are not difficult exactly, but they wear you down. Working 15-25 hours a week in school is not the same as working 40 hours a week or more year round. I've run the gamut from bust-my-ass minimum wage jobs to I-can't-believe-how-much-they-pay-me tech jobs. Working in an office is easier, people treat you better, and employers are almost always more flexible.

The minimum wage should be higher to reflect not only the difficulty of the job (rather being depressed by the glut of cheap labor) but also common decency and humanity. The most insidious aspect of this whole debate are the boot-strappers whose union bashing arguments essentially boil down to "I dealt with x terrible things for y amount of time but now I'm a Millionaire!" Rather than asking why things had to be so gakky and trying to work to improve the system, they try to impose its harsh realities on others. It's classic divide and conquer.

I like how you called a bunch of posters racists. Classic (and reported).

Pointing out white privilege is not the same thing as calling someone racist.

Wow... generalize much... no?

Purple Saturday wrote:
Pointing out white privilege is not the same thing as calling someone racist.

I'm afraid it is you creepy ass cracker you.

 Frazzled wrote:

Purple Saturday wrote:
Pointing out white privilege is not the same thing as calling someone racist.

I'm afraid it is you creepy ass cracker you.

Wait... isn't that a term of endearment? *goes look for that Floridian decoder ring*

Did you just inadvertently call Fraz a Floridian?

Pretty sure that an insult in Texas

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you just inadvertently call Fraz a Floridian?

Pretty sure that an insult in Texas

Referencing to Rachel Jeantel's comment in the Zimmerman trial.

I wouldn't insult any Texans... that have have gunz! Girrrlz with ginormous bewbs, and SPICY queso!

I know better than to insult Texans.

 Jihadin wrote:
Think the notion or implied threat to fire someone has a tendency to pick up one production. One person = clean 20 tables in under 20 min can happen

True, if you threaten hard enough you can get one person to clean 100 tables in 20 min.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you just inadvertently call Fraz a Floridian?

Pretty sure that an insult in Texas

It is. Under the rules of Duello I affirm on my honor that I am no swordsman, and elect our weapons to be...tamales!

 Frazzled wrote:

I like how you called a bunch of posters racists. Classic (and reported).

Well done for pressing the panic button and disregarding an entire post for something so trivial that I had to read the post twice before I noticed it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think the notion or implied threat to fire someone has a tendency to pick up one production. One person = clean 20 tables in under 20 min can happen

True, if you threaten hard enough you can get one person to clean 100 tables in 20 min.

Give me ten bucks and a 3.5 in hose and I'll clean 100 tables in 2 minutes, and anyone sitting at them at the time!

Purple Saturday wrote:

Anyone claiming they've modeled the effects of raising the minimum wage on the economy is a fool and knows nothing about the field of economics. Micro-economic models are more or less a complete joke. The real-world constraints on the movement of goods and services, not to mention information, makes predicting the distribution of anything on a large scale infinitely complex. Math =/= the real world (just breathe nerds); it's just too big and there are too many unknowns when you get people involved.

You're absolutely right. As such, we shouldn't even try. Eat the economists! Burn the textbooks, I say! When graph paper is outlawed, only outlaws will graph!

Yes, if you raise the minimum wage, some companies will move jobs somewhere else for cheaper labor. China recently lost MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs that moved to cheaper India or Sub-Saharan Africa. Paying 3 dollars a day was just too much for these poor companies to take. So obviously the best solution is to always try and undercut your neighbor where wages and taxes apply because that's what leads to prosperity...

It doesn't make any sense to hold companies generally accountable for such practices and demand world standards in payment and labor rights. Certainly many of these companies aren't sitting on trillions of dollars in capital reserves, so there is no way they could pay their employees more without having it affect their pricing significantly...

It's a lot more complicated than that. If you're talking about the companies that can just up and move half their workforce out of your country, then yes, yes they DO have at least millions of dollars in reserves. Maybe CxOs shouldn't make orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude more than the employees of the company who are actually producing product. Maybe we could all stand to pay .50 more for that crappy plastic widget we don't really need anyway.

And don't get me started on Unions. It's as if they just manifested out of nowhere to suckle on the plump tits of entrepreneurial industry. There is absolutely no historical documentation that points towards the tendency of corporate entities and managerial culture to be as abusive of their employees as possible.

You... wait... what?

The Battle of Blair Mountain illustrates the very thing you claim doesn't exist.

Really, capitalism DEMANDS the abuse your employees for profit just up until the threshold of frustration before they quit. Anything less represents inefficiency.

The minimum wage should be higher to reflect not only the difficulty of the job (rather being depressed by the glut of cheap labor) but also common decency and humanity. The most insidious aspect of this whole debate are the boot-strappers whose union bashing arguments essentially boil down to "I dealt with x terrible things for y amount of time but now I'm a Millionaire!" Rather than asking why things had to be so gakky and trying to work to improve the system, they try to impose its harsh realities on others. It's classic divide and conquer.

Yup. You should have pride in your accomplishments, but you should also realize that there exists the possibility that the difference between you and the guy at McD's is several degrees smaller than you'd think it was.

I thought that comment on unions was sarcasm, as that's the only thing that fits bar being insane.

 Frazzled wrote:


Give me ten bucks and a 3.5 in hose and I'll clean 100 tables in 2 minutes, and anyone sitting at them at the time!

I'll do it for five if you give me Jidhadin's water cannon.

Capitalism, baby!

I'll do it for free*

* - You just have to buy me lunch

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I thought that comment on unions was sarcasm, as that's the only thing that fits bar being insane.

This is Dakka OT. We just had a guy post sincerely advocating a Judge Dredd totalitarian state.

At this point, I can make zero assumptions for sarcasm, and have to error on the side of flying rodent gak insane.

 daedalus wrote:


You... wait... what?

The Battle of Blair Mountain illustrates the very thing you claim doesn't exist.

Really, capitalism DEMANDS the abuse your employees for profit just up until the threshold of frustration before they quit. Anything less represents inefficiency.

I was joking. I was being facetious through most of the middle of the post (it's commonly known that the Fortune 500 are sitting on trillions of dollars they don't know what to do with, and we should stop companies from just jumping around the globe to exploit the cheapest labor possible). I fully support Unions and unionization and am well versed in labor history in the United States. Yes, some Unions abuse their power or act in a less than upright fashion, but that is true of.... everything???

I know daedalus I know...

But I have to think this way, I have to hope these people aren't as evil and insane as they post.

And if I do that, I can celebrate them as excellent trolls and hope their views don't get any serious consideration due to them being trolls.

Or something. Sometimes I just hate knowing what scum exist in this world, and get to post on here.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I like how you called a bunch of posters racists. Classic (and reported).

Well done for pressing the panic button and disregarding an entire post for something so trivial that I had to read the post twice before I noticed it.

Thats because you just wouldn't understand the personal experience of my people, and what we've been through.

I didnt bother reading anything past the first post, so forgive me if I'm re-covering old ground:

I'm not defending McDonalds or the minimum wage (I think it needs to be raised a good bit to at least be livable, or rather, it should be done in two-tiers, one for students and teens, etc. who are claimed as dependents by their families, in which case the current minimum is fine (although lets be generous and hike it up just a little) and the second tier for those who have dependents of their own), but I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions here.

This lists two jobs, but if you assume an $8 minimum (which might be low in some states and high in others), the $1105 monthly income translates to less than 40 hours per week (which makes sense as I know few people working hourly minimum wage jobs that actually get 40 hours per out of it), meaning the second job is taken as supplemental income to make up for the shortfall of hours (which is absolutely 100% reasonable) and in this case it seems to more than cover the shortfall and then some.

Of course, I realized after typing this that this assumes that those incomes are before taxes, which is impossible because the budget doesn't list taxes as an expenditure... if this is what they expect people to pull in AFTER taxes, then they really are total slave drivers since you'd have to be working shy of 80 hours per week to pull that at minimum.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I didnt bother reading anything past the first post.... but I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions here.

Either you are lying about reading or lying about seeing...

And yes, that's full-time+ with both of those jobs. 7.25-8.25 an hour doesn't look like much after taxes (although of course you do get most state and federal income taxes back in the end, although you lose money to Medicare, SS, Property Taxes, Sales Tax, etc...)

Purple Saturday wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


You... wait... what?

The Battle of Blair Mountain illustrates the very thing you claim doesn't exist.

Really, capitalism DEMANDS the abuse your employees for profit just up until the threshold of frustration before they quit. Anything less represents inefficiency.

I was joking. I was being facetious through most of the middle of the post (it's commonly known that the Fortune 500 are sitting on trillions of dollars they don't know what to do with, and we should stop companies from just jumping around the globe to exploit the cheapest labor possible). I fully support Unions and unionization and am well versed in labor history in the United States. Yes, some Unions abuse their power or act in a less than upright fashion, but that is true of.... everything???

Fair enough. It was really hard to notice the change in tone mid-post, but rereading it with the above in mind, it's more understandable. That's the Internet for you, I guess.

I should have made it more obvious, or just, you know, been straightforward. The fault is entirely mine good sir.

Purple Saturday wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:
Kind of curious how they expect people to work 2 jobs when it seems as though they are not flexible with their schedules at all.

Know some people who worked at McDonald's and never had a fixed scheduled to be able to coordinated with another job.

there are 6 Mcdonalds within a 1.1 mile radius of me (shameful I know).

There is always a help wanted sign on their doors. All of them have "Must be available all hours."

QFT. Food service jobs rarely have set hours, so it's hard to even pull up such an exact budget. Hours get cut and shifted by scheduling managers to reward and punish workers for a range of explicit or implicit reasons. Working two full-time service jobs is nearly impossible unless both of your scheduling managers really, really like you.

I'm disturbed by the number of *BOOT-STRAPS* proclamations in this thread but then Libertarianism has always been inextricably linked with white privilege.

Anyone claiming they've modeled the effects of raising the minimum wage on the economy is a fool and knows nothing about the field of economics. Micro-economic models are more or less a complete joke. The real-world constraints on the movement of goods and services, not to mention information, makes predicting the distribution of anything on a large scale infinitely complex. Math =/= the real world (just breathe nerds); it's just too big and there are too many unknowns when you get people involved.

Yes, if you raise the minimum wage, some companies will move jobs somewhere else for cheaper labor. China recently lost MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs that moved to cheaper India or Sub-Saharan Africa. Paying 3 dollars a day was just too much for these poor companies to take. So obviously the best solution is to always try and undercut your neighbor where wages and taxes apply because that's what leads to prosperity...

It doesn't make any sense to hold companies generally accountable for such practices and demand world standards in payment and labor rights. Certainly many of these companies aren't sitting on trillions of dollars in capital reserves, so there is no way they could pay their employees more without having it affect their pricing significantly...

And don't get me started on Unions. It's as if they just manifested out of nowhere to suckle on the plump tits of entrepreneurial industry. There is absolutely no historical documentation that points towards the tendency of corporate entities and managerial culture to be as abusive of their employees as possible.

In all seriousness, fast-food jobs are hard. They are not difficult exactly, but they wear you down. Working 15-25 hours a week in school is not the same as working 40 hours a week or more year round. I've run the gamut from bust-my-ass minimum wage jobs to I-can't-believe-how-much-they-pay-me tech jobs. Working in an office is easier, people treat you better, and employers are almost always more flexible.

The minimum wage should be higher to reflect not only the difficulty of the job (rather being depressed by the glut of cheap labor) but also common decency and humanity. The most insidious aspect of this whole debate are the boot-strappers whose union bashing arguments essentially boil down to "I dealt with x terrible things for y amount of time but now I'm a Millionaire!" Rather than asking why things had to be so gakky and trying to work to improve the system, they try to impose its harsh realities on others. It's classic divide and conquer.

I personally think that minimum wage should be higher.

But how high is the problem. It would be nice if McDonald's employee could make 40k a year with great benefits. Unfortunately, as many other people have said it's a job skill just about any person can possess . With anyone willing to work at McDonald's they can pay you what they want. The fact McDonald's has a very high turnover rate proves that. Otherwise they would pay a lot more to keep people.

Unfortunately America is in a conundrum with jobs right now and Guvment doesn't care.

I personally feel that a lot of our issues start with our education system and how we prep students for life. Teaching to take tests and having society cry about Evolution, Jesus and sex education doesn't do jack gak.

As far as understanding the plight of a minimum wage worker, been there, done that. Still do it to an extent. Worked at grocery stores, restaurants and many other big chains. Only thing worse than getting paid a very low wage is dealing with ignoble customers.

Still work as a waiter part time, still sucks. I have a small business, sort of. I make furniture for people and repair lawn mowers. I still get nasty people, I guess I can't escape them. There is no possible way I could build a grandfather clock for 1000 bucks.

Also do odd jobs such as fix toilets, lay tile, put in new sinks and work at local indie wrestling promotions. Things I would never have been able to do while I worked at places such as K mart, Target, Olive Garden. Schedules are just to random to organize anything long term with another job. But it has all been worth it. Save enough cash to return to school after my temporary medical leave. If anything, working at unrewarding jobs such as a store clerk makes me want to work harder in school.

A number of my friend's who didn't want to go to college or dropped out ended working at dead end jobs, high recommend them learning a trade. 1 became an electrician after bouncing from store to store as a clerk. Still tough work but makes 25 bucks an hour now. More than his 7.25 and no benefits.

 Piston Honda wrote:

I personally feel that a lot of our issues start with our education system and how we prep students for life. Teaching to take tests and having society cry about Evolution, Jesus and sex education doesn't do jack gak.

If there's one thing I learned after 17 years of education it's how to efficiently gamble on standardized tests.

You make use of your D4s on multiple choice questions too?

Grey Templar wrote:How would you like it if there was a mandated 10% taken out of your paycheck to fund the local food bank/homeless shelter/orphanage/etc... You have no say where that money goes. Maybe you want it to go to the local homeless shelter, but instead it gets shuffled out of state where someone in a government office decided the need is greater.

Do you mean like a tithe?

Frazzled wrote:Thats because you just wouldn't understand the personal experience of my people, and what we've been through.

As a white male, age 18-35 and born into an upper-middle-class family of european descent in one of the best places on Earth, I suspect that I would understand the personal experience of "your people" quite well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They don't have to clean the tables 20% faster. They could even be slightly slower compared to what they were with more people on staff.

but if the reduction in speed is acceptable compared to the savings in salary then they will do it.


You are assuming the employer will make no compromise in expectations. This is nonsensical.

Nonsensical? Minimum duties is a core concept in business process planning. I mean, I don't want to drop an expertise claim in here, but I do this for a living, and a core concept in mapping a business process is to recognise the stuff you simply can't do without. The idea that a restaurant will avoid paying a higher minimum wage by leaving tables uncleaned or leaving orders untaken is just nonsense.

And, once again, look at the rest of the developed world, please. We have lots of restaurants despite having much higher minimum wages. Your argument that increasing the US minimum wage will drive down employment just doesn't work from a simple look at the real world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think the notion or implied threat to fire someone has a tendency to pick up one production. One person = clean 20 tables in under 20 min can happen

Studies have shown that to be true, but only over the short term. Long term productivity reverts to the norm, and in some cases even drops back below the original point (either through the best employees leaving the hostile environment for a less stressful job or burn out).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, but taking care of the poor is the individual responsibility. Not the government.

Yeah, people used to say that lot. Lots of babies died of malnutrition and kids worked in factories. So we changed things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The rich have to be given the choice between helping those less fortunate then themselves, or not helping. You can't and shouldn't force charity.

You don't force charity, that's true. Instead you just accept that charity is all well and good, but it simply isn't enough to provide for all the people who desperately need help. So, provided your interest is primarily with helping those who need help and not some strange, abstract notion of what is and isn't charity, you build a welfare system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purple Saturday wrote:
Anyone claiming they've modeled the effects of raising the minimum wage on the economy is a fool and knows nothing about the field of economics. Micro-economic models are more or less a complete joke. The real-world constraints on the movement of goods and services, not to mention information, makes predicting the distribution of anything on a large scale infinitely complex.

Market complexities make analysis an inexact science, but in terms of minimum wage, it's an inexact science with many distinct events that can be studied (ie the minimum wage has been increased many time, by many different amounts, and each time you can look in detail at the effect on unskilled unemployment, on youth unemployment etc). As a result, all that maths can be tested and refined, to the point where we can say with some confidence what the effect of an increase will be.

To put it simply, we've been saying 'well we raised minimum wage by $1 last year, and unemployment held steady in an average growth economy, so let's see what happens if we increase it by another $0.50...'

And yeah, that meant in Australia we got over $16 per hour before it was felt it'd start materially impacting on unemployment. Which means the US could almost certainly increase their rate to $11 or $12 at a minimum without impacting unemployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
This is Dakka OT. We just had a guy post sincerely advocating a Judge Dredd totalitarian state.

At this point, I can make zero assumptions for sarcasm, and have to error on the side of flying rodent gak insane.

Almost everytime I've assumed sarcasm on dakka I've been wrong.

Hunger and malnutrition is a great exmple of how "the individuals should handle charity" just doesn't work.

We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point, then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

 d-usa wrote:
We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point,

Citation needed.

then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

That sucks. You should do more to help.

 d-usa wrote:
Hunger and malnutrition is a great exmple of how "the individuals should handle charity" just doesn't work.

We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point, then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

I was doing some artwork today, and had the Daily Show on in the background. I wasn't paying full attention, but something was said about cutting funding for food stamps. Of course, if the starving children die of malnutrition, you no longer have any starving children to worry about.

SOLVING THE PROBLEM! 'MURICA!

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point,

Citation needed.

then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

That sucks. You should do more to help.

You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point,

Citation needed.

then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

That sucks. You should do more to help.

You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

He doesn't have the self-awareness to recognize that he's an avatar of the point you were making.

 d-usa wrote:
You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

It's hardly a smartass comment. You can do more. You're on a website devoted to miniature wargames, so it's clear you have disposable income. If you're not spending every penny of it on making sure children don't starve, you've made the determination that your own enjoyment outweighs hungry children.

You monster.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You can make smartass comments about people doing more without any of us producing documentation for charitable giving, and in doing so continue to ignore the hard evidence that "people and communities picking things up" doesn't work.

It's hardly a smartass comment. You can do more. You're on a website devoted to miniature wargames, so it's clear you have disposable income. If you're not spending every penny of it on making sure children don't starve, you've made the determination that your own enjoyment outweighs hungry children.

You monster.

So we know you must be a monster too since you are here and no a compassionate conservative.

And again, without both of us producing receipts for charitable giving to see who gives more and does more, there is still the proof that while you are running your mouth about how people should just give more instead of being on the same forum as you there are kids that are hungry tonight who don't know if they will eat tomorrow.

 d-usa wrote:
So we know you must be a monster too since you are here and no a compassionate conservative.

Sure, by that standard, but not a hypocritical one. I'm not calling on people to give up more of their money.

And again, without both of us producing receipts for charitable giving to see who gives more and does more, there is still the proof that while you are running your mouth about how people should just give more instead of being on the same forum as you there are kids that are hungry tonight who don't know if they will eat tomorrow.

And my question is, why aren't you doing something about it? You claim to care, but you also buy, we'll assume, assault squads, or DVDs, or video games, or cable television service. Is it a sliding scale? Are hungry children worth more than a latte from Starbucks, but not worth more than a new miniature army? At some point, clearly, you made the decision that it - or something like it - outweighed hungry children.

You have the means to make an actual difference, if you so chose, but instead you seem content to use the issue as a political football.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we know you must be a monster too since you are here and no a compassionate conservative.

Sure, by that standard, but not a hypocritical one. I'm not calling on people to give up more of their money.

And again, without both of us producing receipts for charitable giving to see who gives more and does more, there is still the proof that while you are running your mouth about how people should just give more instead of being on the same forum as you there are kids that are hungry tonight who don't know if they will eat tomorrow.

And my question is, why aren't you doing something about it? You claim to care, but you also buy, we'll assume, assault squads, or DVDs, or video games, or cable television service. You have the means to make an actual difference, if you so chose, but instead you seem content to use the issue as a political football.

Again:

You don't know jack about what I do, so you can sit there and go "haha he has Space Marines so he is just playing political football by pretenting to care" and I can sit here and go "haha he has DVDs and doesn't even pretent to care". Unlike you I realize, by simply looking out my window when I drive to work in the city, that the "you could make a difference if you want to" mindset has never worked. I also realize that it is more effective to take a little from everyone to help everyone than it is to depend on the kindness of strangers to solve the problems of this country.

Of course I also realize that there is absolutely zero point in arguing with you about anything and I will leave the futility of those arguments to people who have not grown tired of it.

 Seaward wrote:
It's hardly a smartass comment. You can do more. You're on a website devoted to miniature wargames, so it's clear you have disposable income. If you're not spending every penny of it on making sure children don't starve, you've made the determination that your own enjoyment outweighs hungry children.

Well, yeah, that's the point. People make the determination to favour their own happiness over helping hungry children. They recognise that sure, hungry children need to be helped, but I really want to expand my Space Wolves or whatever... and someone else can surely help that starving kid.

It's why when we relied on private charity to ease the suffering of the poor we got lots of child malnutrition and people dying from exposure.

As a society we looked at that system, and decided all those kids with malnutrition and people dying of exposure was not very acceptable. And so we built a system that makes helping mandatory.

And now lots of people complain that because its mandatory it isn't charity, and that they want to give, but it should be their choice how much they want to give. To which I can respond 'I don't give a flying feth about inane moral arguments, the people who needed food and shelter were not getting it under the old system, and now they are, and so returning to the old system would be stupid.'

 d-usa wrote:
Again:

You don't know jack about what I do, so you can sit there and go "haha he has Space Marines so he is just playing political football by pretenting to care" and I can sit here and go "haha he has DVDs and doesn't even pretent to care". Unlike you I realize, by simply looking out my window when I drive to work in the city, that the "you could make a difference if you want to" mindset has never worked. I also realize that it is more effective to take a little from everyone to help everyone than it is to depend on the kindness of strangers to solve the problems of this country.

Of course I also realize that there is absolutely zero point in arguing with you about anything and I will leave the futility of those arguments to people who have not grown tired of it.

I'm sorry, what? "It doesn't work?" You're telling me you couldn't feed a couple kids with your excess income? I bet you could. Instead, though, you've chosen to throw up your hands and wait on policy - while continuing to purchase luxury goods. Tsk, tsk.

You don't want to take a little from everyone, by the way. You want to take a little from you, and a lot from me.

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Again:

You don't know jack about what I do, so you can sit there and go "haha he has Space Marines so he is just playing political football by pretenting to care" and I can sit here and go "haha he has DVDs and doesn't even pretent to care". Unlike you I realize, by simply looking out my window when I drive to work in the city, that the "you could make a difference if you want to" mindset has never worked. I also realize that it is more effective to take a little from everyone to help everyone than it is to depend on the kindness of strangers to solve the problems of this country.

Of course I also realize that there is absolutely zero point in arguing with you about anything and I will leave the futility of those arguments to people who have not grown tired of it.

I'm sorry, what? "It doesn't work?" You're telling me you couldn't feed a couple kids with your excess income? I bet you could. Instead, though, you've chosen to throw up your hands and wait on policy - while continuing to purchase luxury goods. Tsk, tsk.

You don't want to take a little from everyone, by the way. You want to take a little from you, and a lot from me.

Would that be from the lot that you once claimed you gained from public funds? As in, a literal translation of "I've already got mine so screw you all"?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Would that be from the lot that you once claimed you gained from public funds? As in, a literal translation of "I've already got mine so screw you all"?

God, no. Junior officers don't get rich.

Also, "earned," not "gained."

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Would that be from the lot that you once claimed you gained from public funds? As in, a literal translation of "I've already got mine so screw you all"?

God, no. Junior officers don't get rich.

Also, "earned," not "gained."

No, I think "gained" is proper. Do you have a college education? How'd you pay for that? Did you work 3 minimum wage jobs, or did the government subsidize it for you?

EDIT: Were you just some street urchin that decided to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and observe journeymen at work, and learned a trade by osmosis? Or did you use an education, paid for with public funds, to turn that into a well-paying career?

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, I think "gained" is proper. Do you have a college education? How'd you pay for that? Did you work 3 minimum wage jobs, or did the government subsidize it for you?

I do indeed have a college education. It's a requisite, y'see.

And it was paid for by a scholarship and a job (until I lost the scholarship, and the job wasn't minimum wage), then I took out loans for the last couple semesters.

In retrospect? Not the way to do it, at all. Should've just gone to the Academy. Could've gotten in, just didn't want to go.

What scholarship? What job?

EDIT: What Academy, even? (sorry, I'm not familiar with even what institution you're implying here.)

 azazel the cat wrote:
What scholarship? What job?

Murray Scholarship. And I worked nights as a manager at a hotel.

EDIT: What Academy, even? (sorry, I'm not familiar with even what institution you're implying here.)

Naval Academy.

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this.

Another reason for keeping the minimum wage low, it helps military recruitment!

[/crazy talk] (am I doing it right?)

 d-usa wrote:
Another reason for keeping the minimum wage low, it helps military recruitment!

[/crazy talk] (am I doing it right?)

You've never had a problem with it.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Another reason for keeping the minimum wage low, it helps military recruitment!

[/crazy talk] (am I doing it right?)

You've never had a problem with it.

Well, I try to keep my crazy at an 8. But sometimes I turn it up to 11 for comedic effect!

Really? You're actually that blind and lacking the self-awareness that you can't see where I'm going with this?

Naval Academy means you accepted money from the government, which was derived from taxes. Anyone who has taken money from the public sector has no right to claim that people shouldn't receive money from the public. You are the embodiment of the "I've got mine already so screw you" mentality, which is often coupled with the painfully erroneous mistake of thinking that "capitalized on an opportunity" is the same as "earned that"; which is likely held in mind because it shields you from the concept that the only thing separating you from the working poor is a little luck, for good or bad. It's far more comforting to believe that you're better than them; that you're more special than they are. That way, you might never have to face the notion that whatever misfortunate (or lack of good fortune) has happened to someone else, could have or still could happen to you.

Believe it or not, we actually have moderately similar circumstances. The difference is that I have the good sense to recognize that a little luck and a priviliged upbringing was every bit as much a contributing factor to success as was any skill or other characteristic unique to me. As such, I like to think I have a sense of duty to society to help bolster the welfare state, simply because it could have been me on the other end of that bargain. Sometimes we get pocket aces, and sometimes we get 2-7. I'd just as soon prefer to see everyone fall into the 7-Q range, rather than the full 2-ace spread.


And I'm not sure what a Murray Scholarship is exactly, that's a pretty common name.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Really? You're actually that blind and lacking the self-awareness that you can't see where I'm going with this?

Some people will never see:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Really? You're actually that blind and lacking the self-awareness that you can't see where I'm going with this?

Naval Academy means you accepted money from the government, which was derived from taxes. Anyone who has taken money from the public sector has no right to claim that people shouldn't receive money from the public. You are the embodiment of the "I've got mine already so screw you" mentality, which is often coupled with the painfully erroneous mistake of thinking that "capitalized on an opportunity" is the same as "earned that"; which is likely held in mind because it shields you from the concept that the only thing separating you from the working poor is a little luck, for good or bad. It's far more comforting to believe that you're better than them; that you're more special than they are. That way, you might never have to face the notion that whatever misfortunate (or lack of good fortune) has happened to someone else, could have or still could happen to you.

I said I should've gone to the Academy, not that I did. If I had it to do over again, I would've taken the Academy route, rather than standard college followed by OCS.

Also, I find it hilarious that you're comparing military service with welfare programs. If I had gone to the Academy, it's not simply a matter of them paying for your degree and then letting you do what you want with it. You owe them time. Come up with a program like that for "social" programs, I'll be all for it.

Flight school, incidentally, bumps the commitment from four years to eight. If the argument is that I am where I am today because of the Navy and a college degree, you're absolutely right. The suggestion it wasn't earned is absolutely wrong.

And I'm not sure what a Murray Scholarship is exactly, that's a pretty common name.

It's a merit scholarship from William and Mary.

So the Murray Scholarship is public money from a public university?

 d-usa wrote:
So the Murray Scholarship is public money from a public university?

Sure is! And they hand it out to anybody who needs it in order to attend college.

Wait, no. It's ridiculously selective and extraordinarily limited in scope. Again, if you want to do a public welfare program with the same strictures, I'm all for it.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So the Murray Scholarship is public money from a public university?

Sure is! And they hand it out to anybody who needs it in order to attend college.

Wait, no. It's ridiculously selective and extraordinarily limited in scope. Again, if you want to do a public welfare program with the same strictures, I'm all for it.

So please, pray tell, how do you attach a "you earned the opportunity to not have your kids sleep hungry" clause to food stamps? Or a "You are high school graduate that can't afford college so you are working minimum wage, but tell us what makes you so much better than anybody else that you should get enough wage to not have to work 74 hours a week" clause to wages?

Point being is that you have absolutely zero resistance to taking my money if you feel that you have done something to earn it, even if I don't think that you deserve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I shall call you "The Island":

 d-usa wrote:
So please, pray tell, how do you attach a "you earned the opportunity to not have your kids sleep hungry" clause to food stamps?

Dunno. Oblige the adult recipients to do a little national service, maybe.

Or a "You are high school graduate that can't afford college so you are working minimum wage, but tell us what makes you so much better than anybody else that you should get enough wage to not have to work 74 hours a week" clause to wages?

That one's easy. If you sucked in high school, time to hit up the student loan store.

Point being is that you have absolutely zero resistance to taking my money if you feel that you have done something to earn it, even if I don't think that you deserve it.

You don't think members of the military have a right to get paid? Or just that they shouldn't be entitled to programs like the GI Bill?

I'm going to love this response, I can tell.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Point being is that you have absolutely zero resistance to taking my money if you feel that you have done something to earn it, even if I don't think that you deserve it.

You don't think members of the military have a right to get paid? Or just that they shouldn't be entitled to programs like the GI Bill?

I'm going to love this response, I can tell.

You don't think that it is wrong for children to starve and sleep hungry because their parents didn't live up to your expectations?

I'm going to love this repsonse, I can tell.

But we can fire a whole lot of military personel and contracts and get those people off the public dough and force them to survive in the private sector without suffering negative consequences.

Do I think military people should get paid, sure. Do I think we need to spend more money on a government jobs program than how many other nations combined? Nope.

Like I said. Everyone, say hello to The Island.

Well, this is starting to go on tangents now, so I'm gonna bring my point back very concisely:

Seaward, unless you were born Jeremiah Johnson and have lived entirely independent from the rest of society, then you have already reaped its rewards. Part of those rewards, comes with the tacit agreement that you will also enable (via taxes, etc) others to both contribute and benefit from those benefits.

To think that you have gotten to wherever you are today exclusively on your own merits is silly on its face.

 d-usa wrote:
You don't think that it is wrong for children to starve and sleep hungry because their parents didn't live up to your expectations?

Nah, I think it's wrong for them to starve and sleep hungry because some people (hypocrites, I call 'em) would rather buy assault marines with that money.

But I also don't think you should get a free ride just for existing.

But we can fire a whole lot of military personel and contracts and get those people off the public dough and force them to survive in the private sector without suffering negative consequences.

Go nuts. I'm doing quite well in the private sector.

Do I think we need to spend more money on a government jobs program than how many other nations combined?

How many other jobs programs can you name that give you such a high chance of experiencing incoming fire?

Seaward wrote:How many other jobs programs can you name that give you such a high chance of experiencing incoming fire?

LEOs and teachers, to start with. But they don't get the save level of reverence for some reason.

 azazel the cat wrote:
LEOs and teachers, to start with. But they don't get the save level of reverence for some reason.

Leaving aside the absurdity of suggesting teachers are as likely to see combat as your average enlistee, it's worth pointing out that we have programs to pay for their education, too.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You don't think that it is wrong for children to starve and sleep hungry because their parents didn't live up to your expectations?

Nah, I think it's wrong for them to starve and sleep hungry because some people (hypocrites, I call 'em) would rather buy assault marines with that money.

But I also don't think you should get a free ride just for existing.

Because keeping children from starving = a free ride just for existing. That's why there is zero point to talking to people like you.

But we can fire a whole lot of military personel and contracts and get those people off the public dough and force them to survive in the private sector without suffering negative consequences.

Go nuts. I'm doing quite well in the private sector.

Congratulations. I am happy that going to a school funded with public money and receiving training paid for with public funds enabled you to be successful.

Do I think we need to spend more money on a government jobs program than how many other nations combined?

How many other jobs programs can you name that give you such a high chance of experiencing incoming fire?

Oh look, it's the BS "we take fire" excuse.

A) You choose the job, nobody forced you to do it. Don't use a BS "it's risky" excuse if you decided that the money was worth it.
B) Every other country has the same risk, and is able to spend less money on their military than us.
C) We can have the same military abilities for a lot less money. Just because it is risky doesn't make it any less of a bloated public jobs program than it is.

And you are still showing how much you are "The Island". Keep it up.

Frazzled wrote:Thats because you just wouldn't understand the personal experience of my people, and what we've been through.

As a white male, age 18-35 and born into an upper-middle-class family of european descent in one of the best places on Earth, I suspect that I would understand the personal experience of "your people" quite well.

You would be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Hunger and malnutrition is a great exmple of how "the individuals should handle charity" just doesn't work.

We almost eliminated childhood hunger at one point, then conservatives happened and they cut food programs saying "individual charity and churches and stuff will step in". Now children go to bed hungry and malnurished every night.

I'm sorry. Who exactly is hungry again? Please show real instances where the WIC is not sold off for something else.

 d-usa wrote:

Because keeping children from starving = a free ride just for existing. That's why there is zero point to talking to people like you.

Wait, we're pretending now that food for children is the only welfare program you support now?

Congratulations. I am happy that going to a school funded with public money and receiving training paid for with public funds enabled you to be successful.

Cute. Hilariously misleading, but cute.

Did you go to a public school? If so, why aren't we paid the same?

Oh look, it's the BS "we take fire" excuse.

Not nearly as BS as the, "It's just another job" excuse. Frankly, I'm surprised you had the balls to type that.

A) You choose the job, nobody forced you to do it. Don't use a BS "it's risky" excuse if you decided that the money was worth it.

I'm sorry, the money? Hahahahahahahaha. Jesus.

Anyway, yeah. You choose to go in. You choose to make that commitment. But pretending that it's not a commitment, and that it's the same as working in the private sector, is hilarious.

B) Every other country has the same risk, and is able to spend less money on their military than us.

Now you're just trolling.

C) We can have the same military abilities for a lot less money. Just because it is risky doesn't make it any less of a bloated public jobs program than it is.

Yeah. As trollfest as it gets.

So pointing out that other countries can manage their military and national security for a fraction of our costs is trolling?

We spend more on our military than the entire government budget of Australia. There are only 10 countries in the world that spend more on their entire budget than we do on our military.

Yes, we can cut that. And to pretend otherwise is just stupid.

And quit pretending that you and the private sector reaped the benefits of your publicly funded education and training.

 d-usa wrote:
So pointing out that other countries can manage their military and national security for a fraction of our costs is trolling?

We spend more on our military than the entire government budget of Australia. There are only 10 countries in the world that spend more on their entire budget than we do on our military.

You think Australia faces the same risks we do? Because that's precisely what you said. It's an interesting and incredibly naive point of view.

And quit pretending that you and the private sector reaped the benefits of your publicly funded education and training.

And again, cute, but misleading.

I'm perfectly fine with public funds spent on people who contribute to society, or at the very least put in effort. That's kind of the basis of merit scholarships, not coincidentally: work your ass off in high school, show yourself to be someone who's going to make a difference, and get rewarded with a lessened or entirely absolved financial burden.

You're more than welcome to try out a cruise if you think any of it was "free," though.

 Seaward wrote:
That one's easy. If you sucked in high school, time to hit up the student loan store.

This quote can go feth itself. I graduated with honors from my high school, had a 3.5+ GPA, and still had to take out federal and private student loans...

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
That one's easy. If you sucked in high school, time to hit up the student loan store.

This quote can go feth itself. I graduated with honors from my high school, had a 3.5+ GPA, and still had to take out federal and private student loans...

What'd the kid(s) from your school who ended up with free rides get?

 Seaward wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
That one's easy. If you sucked in high school, time to hit up the student loan store.

This quote can go feth itself. I graduated with honors from my high school, had a 3.5+ GPA, and still had to take out federal and private student loans...

What'd the kid(s) from your school who ended up with free rides get?

You're changing your argument.

Chongara wrote:
You're changing your argument.

Nope. The argument is, "Work your ass off and be better than everyone else." It pays to be a winner.

 Seaward wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
That one's easy. If you sucked in high school, time to hit up the student loan store.

This quote can go feth itself. I graduated with honors from my high school, had a 3.5+ GPA, and still had to take out federal and private student loans...

What'd the kid(s) from your school who ended up with free rides get?

No one got a free ride at my school, athletes got a disproportionate amount of scholarship money, but my university doesn't give full rides. You could be from the poorest of the poor, graduated high school with a 4.2 (some schools use this for weighted and AP classes), and gotten a 36 and an 1800 on your ACT and SAT respectively, and the school would still make them pay 2 to 5 grand.

And you are technically changing your argument, you said don't suck in high school. I didn't suck in high school, hell the maximum merit based aid that my school gives for students entering this year (2013-2014) is 15,000 a year. That barely covers 1/3rd of tuition.

Man, Seaward, you are something special. I wish I could bottle you.