Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.