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.

 Vulcan wrote:

No, it only DIRECTLY beneifts those who are working minimum wage.

Not quite... there alterior motives to why most Union shop push for increased minimum wage. Labor unions often peg their negotiated wages to the minimum wage. Increases in the minimum wage can therefore trigger new wage negotiations or immediate pay hikes for unionized employee.

 Vulcan wrote:

Interest adjusted, the highest minimum wage has been worth was around $10.50 in the late sixites. And yet at that time, the average America could much better afford a house, car, and college education for thier kids then the average America can now. Why do you suppose that was?

Part of it is obviously the cost of goods. Taxation of goods and services has also increased fairly dramatically since the sixties (case in point, cigarettes).

I'd also hazard that another part is in our upbringing, as well as the purchases that people make. Things like cable are definitely not necessary, and weren't even available as such in the 60s, yet how many households will use the phrase "i have to have X on TV". In essence the things that many people insist that they "need" are not needs, but tie up our money on a long term basis, to where it takes away many people's purchasing power.

I think this is a great idea.

What could possibly go wrong?

awesome, b/c that didn't cause our current recession or anything. Blah

 caledoneus wrote:
awesome, b/c that didn't cause our current recession or anything. Blah

Ive heard of history repeating itself....but holy gak, can we wait till that was considered history?


Further proving to me that Obama is a terrible president

 KingCracker wrote:
Ive heard of history repeating itself....but holy gak, can we wait till that was considered history?


Further proving to me that Obama is a terrible president

 KingCracker wrote:

 caledoneus wrote:
awesome, b/c that didn't cause our current recession or anything. Blah

Ive heard of history repeating itself....but holy gak, can we wait till that was considered history?


Further proving to me that Obama is a terrible president

yeah... pretty sure a decade isn't quite long enough

I don't quite understand the persistent moaning about Obama by some on this sight, i am not an American, i'm Scottish, and i would give a leg for Obama to run my country.



BACK ON TOPIC


As i said earlier as long as Obama doesn't push things to far the idea should work.

Well, on behalf of all of america... you can have him...

Now wait, we should get something out of the deal.

You can have him, but only if you also take Snooki.

lol. I'm down with that... we have an accord...

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
I don't quite understand the persistent moaning about Obama by some on this sight, i am not an American, i'm Scottish, and i would give a leg for Obama to run my country.

Does Scotland have an extensive drone program? I don't think he'd go, otherwise.

BACK ON TOPIC


As i said earlier as long as Obama doesn't push things to far the idea should work.

It should, yes.

Until it fails catastrophically a la 2008ish.

*(Upper) middle class people take out loans far in excess of their ability to repay in order to buy real estate for the purpose of immediately selling it again at a higher price, because reality TV tells them that's a magic money fountain*
*The credit industry plays a giant shell game, operating on the principle that if they make it confusing enough it literally becomes magic*
*Real estate market crashes, the people who bought it to sell are forced to default on the loans, the shell game ends, revealing that the people who concocted it ran off with much of the money, laughing and mooning us as they went, recession follows as interest rates skyrocket*
"Clearly this is regulation's fault! That and poor people who took out loans they could and did repay/are repaying!"

That rant was based on nothing that I can percieve in either the news or the contents of this thread.

Well done.

 Monster Rain wrote:
That rant was based on nothing that I can percieve in either the news or the contents of this thread.

Well done.

Really? When the overwhelming response in this thread is "isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?" pointing out that "no, it really wasn't," isn't based on the contents of this thread?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
*(Upper) middle class people take out loans far in excess of their ability to repay in order to buy real estate for the purpose of immediately selling it again at a higher price, because reality TV tells them that's a magic money fountain*
*The credit industry plays a giant shell game, operating on the principle that if they make it confusing enough it literally becomes magic*
*Real estate market crashes, the people who bought it to sell are forced to default on the loans, the shell game ends, revealing that the people who concocted it ran off with much of the money, laughing and mooning us as they went, recession follows as interest rates skyrocket*
"Clearly this is regulation's fault! That and poor people who took out loans they could and did repay/are repaying!"

I think people should be forced to be poor for X amount of years when they start off in life. It teaches you the value of the dollar (which isnt much) and how to make a $200 paycheck stretch into a $300 paycheck. If that was how it was done, then people probably wouldnt take out loans and lines of credit like they made $500k a year when they really only make $200k a year. Just saying. And I agree, blame us poor folk, because obviously its us that get approved for loans on housing and realestate and default on them!...oh wait no thats not right


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
That rant was based on nothing that I can percieve in either the news or the contents of this thread.

Well done.

Really? When the overwhelming response in this thread is "isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?" pointing out that "no, it really wasn't," isn't based on the contents of this thread?

Dont mind MR, hes a professional troll. Carry on

 caledoneus wrote:
Well, on behalf of all of america... you can have him...

Seconded. I particularl.y like when he sent back the bust of Churchill and sent your PM a dvd series. Stay classy...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
That rant was based on nothing that I can percieve in either the news or the contents of this thread.

Well done.

Really? When the overwhelming response in this thread is "isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?" pointing out that "no, it really wasn't," isn't based on the contents of this thread?

I was more referring to blaming the poor for the problem. I don't think that happens, at least not in the numbers you seem to be implying. I read a fair amount of news, and it seems that most publications put the blame squarely on the deregulation of these banks that was spurred by the government.

KC, as an aside, I hope you realize how much your ironic, off topic, trollish post amused me just now.

Rand Paul 2016!
...just saying...

 KingCracker wrote:
I think people should be forced to be poor for X amount of years when they start off in life. It teaches you the value of the dollar (which isnt much) and how to make a $200 paycheck stretch into a $300 paycheck.

While I'm not sure I agree with this exact sentiment, this does make me think of something I've often espoused: I wish they would teach some more practical things in school, and not in a specialized class, but as part of the general curriculum. Some of the things this class would teach:

How to change a tire on your car
How to balance a checkbook
How to prepare for a job interview
Why you shouldn't buy HDMI cables at Best Buy
How to unclog a toilet
Why you shouldn't talk to the police
How to jumpstart a car
How to check your oil
How to make a budget

I'm interested as to why one shouldn't talk to the police.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
That rant was based on nothing that I can percieve in either the news or the contents of this thread.

Well done.

Really? When the overwhelming response in this thread is "isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?" pointing out that "no, it really wasn't," isn't based on the contents of this thread?

I was more referring to blaming the poor for the problem. I don't think that happens, at least not in the numbers you seem to be implying. I read a fair amount of news, and it seems that most publications put the blame squarely on the deregulation of these banks that was spurred by the government.

KC, as an aside, I hope you realize how much your ironic, off topic, trollish post amused me just now.

This thread was basically just an echo chamber of it, though. The media was any number of things, depending on the station and the phases of the moon.

Every lawyer I've ever talked to has said you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm interested as to why one shouldn't talk to the police.

You can seek to 8:20 if you like without missing the important stuff.

I hope that anyone with information about Rehteah Parsons' rape or the Boston explosions has grown out of this type of paranoid thinking.

 Ouze wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
I think people should be forced to be poor for X amount of years when they start off in life. It teaches you the value of the dollar (which isnt much) and how to make a $200 paycheck stretch into a $300 paycheck.

While I'm not sure I agree with this exact sentiment, this does make me think of something I've often espoused: I wish they would teach some more practical things in school, and not in a specialized class, but as part of the general curriculum. Some of the things this class would teach:

How to change a tire on your car
How to balance a checkbook
How to prepare for a job interview
Why you shouldn't buy HDMI cables at Best Buy
How to unclog a toilet
Why you shouldn't talk to the police
How to jumpstart a car
How to check your oil
How to make a budget

Excluding car stuff, all of that was taught to me in school. Granted it was electives.

While this might show Dakka how woefully terrible I am at being an adult, I was taught how to balance a checkbook in my 6th grade math class and my father who was a banker for 15+ years. I don't do it currently, and I'm not entirely sure why I would change to learn how to properly balance a checkbook. In today's digital age, I currently keep a check register (though rarely do I check it against my bank statement), but I can, at any hour of the day, log on to my bank's website and get a "current" balance of my checking account. And from there I can compare those numbers against my upcoming expenses...

Currently in my bank account I have 205.86 (I really don't care if Dakka knows how poor or rich I am atm). My current expenses for the next week include my cell phone payment, and my student loan payment, as well as 2 tanks of gas. I know that I currently have enough for 1 tank of gas and my cell phone payment. But looking ahead to what I need to pay in the next week, I know that I get paid tomorrow.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can compare things in real time that balancing a checkbook against my bank statement actually leads me to getting confused about the actual level of funds that I have.

With my rambling being said, I had to learn everything in Ouze's list from my own experiences outside of school (whether it was from a job or just my own curiosity)

 Ouze wrote:

While I'm not sure I agree with this exact sentiment, this does make me think of something I've often espoused: I wish they would teach some more practical things in school, and not in a specialized class, but as part of the general curriculum. Some of the things this class would teach:

How to change a tire on your car
How to balance a checkbook
How to prepare for a job interview
Why you shouldn't buy HDMI cables at Best Buy
How to unclog a toilet
Why you shouldn't talk to the police
How to jumpstart a car
How to check your oil
How to make a budget

NANNY STATE! SOCIALISM!

In all fairness, they schools can't take valuable time teachign that crap. They have to make sure kids pass tests so the school can get funding. Learning any of those thing sont he list will NOT help a student pass the standardized tests which are how the schools make their money from the Feds and State.

 Ouze wrote:

While I'm not sure I agree with this exact sentiment, this does make me think of something I've often espoused: I wish they would teach some more practical things in school, and not in a specialized class, but as part of the general curriculum. Some of the things this class would teach:

How to balance a checkbook
How to make a budget

If a Congress Person/Senator cannot balance their household checkbook, or make a budget for their house, then they should not be permitted to run for office and have a say in the nation's finances.

When's the last time any of you actually WROTE a check? I've had my current bank account for something like five years now and I have yet to go through a single check book more then half way. I don't bother balancing my check book because I keep track of my inlays and outlays through online banking.