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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Haight wrote:

True - but is it frowned upon in the states ? You keep saying it's frowned upon here. I've never met anyone who said "i'm an electrician" and was snubbed at a social gathering.

This is true, however it is prior to gaining that employment/career as an electrician.... During our High School years. I know when I was still in HS, it was basically drummed into our heads that the *only* way to be a true success was to go to college and get a degree.

We adults know that this is simply not true, but at the time, I was fairly hard on myself for not being in a good position to go to college. We as a society also seem to place heavy importance on being good in athletics, would it not be better to teach our kids, as a society to live healthy lifestyles, seek out what they love and make money doing it? I know that by the time I left my HS, the electives classes offered had been cut in half by my senior year. This means that semi-vocational based courses went out the window, which is a damn shame because those sorts of classes may have been the only opportunity for someone to find their passion and what they want to do once they enter the "working man's world"

This is really my point. As adults we don't frown upon it. But when kids are in school the "path to success" is very clearly painted as going to university. Vocational schools in the US are, at least in Ohio and Kentucky, stigmatized as where the "bad" or "lazy" kids go. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how it is.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As far as the Unions go, well they blindly followed this Administration over the ACA without realising what it would do to them, so their stance over immigration doesn't surprise me.

Once they saw ACA wasn't in their interests as it would cost them their sweet middle man cash cow they stopped supporting it. So we know the unions are willing to leave the Democrats when policy doesn't suit them. As such, the only way that legalisation of migrants could be supported by the unions against their own best interests would be if we believed that somehow the unions failed to see how it was harmful, while you could see it so clearly that you assume it is self-evident.

I think that's a pretty out there assumption, to be honest.

The answer is more like Fraz suggested - illegal immigrants aren't joining unions, while legal immigrants might (and are much likely to do so if the union played a role in getting them authorised). Add in that legal immigrants are subject to standard work and pay conditions, and so place little downward pressure on wages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Just keep in mind folks...

The higher the wage... you'll see more and more automation.

Yes and no. I mean, yeah, automation replaces human labour as labour gets more expensive. But there's industries where that happens, and industries where it doesn. If you look around the world and the higher minimum wages on offer, as I've been asking people to do through this thread, we don't have robotic KFCs. That's because assembling a twister combo might be mind-numbingly easy work for a human, it's not the kind of thing robot tend to be very good at (unless you get a really, really sophisticated robot).

Frankly... I just wish they'd hurry up with the touchscreen ordering interfaces at driveups...

I'm a little wary about using a touch screen that's been used by your average McDonalds customer. I don't even want to use the EFTPOS in those places.

You could just stop going to fast food ;-). It's Better for you in the long run anyways

 whembly wrote:
Nah... just look at the regular food procession industry.

That candy bar you just bought? Was mixed / cooked / packaged by a machine...

Absolutely. But humans aren't rational animals - they're unlikely to get bothered by something they can't see - like the automated process that produced their chocolate bar, while they are likely to bothered if they look in the fast food restaurant and see hardly any humans.

That said, I doubt that's all that much of an issue. People make noise and threaten to boycott a store, and then a week later there's some other issue and everyone is turning up to that place again. Remember the Chik-a-fila nonsense? Loads of anti-gay marriage people turned up, and loads of pro-gay marriage people boycotted, and a few weeks later everyone became sensible again, and started basing their decision on what they wanted to eat. People make lots of noise if a new Walmart opens up, but then a few months later everyone shops there.

Nah, I think the biggest issue is that robotics work wonderfully well in manipulating precise items, but fast food is not at all precise. It's a chaotic mess, and humans are simply still better than robots, for the cost, at assembling a hamburger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.

That's an argument for higher wages for all kinds of poorly paid positions, its hardly an argument against someone else getting a decent wage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
At least if McDonalds paid their workers 15 dollars an hour the country would start to get healthier, as no one would want to eat 8 dollar quarter pounders for lunch.

A quarter pounder currently costs $3, so you're predicting an increase in price of 167%. If the $15 pay was granted, it'd be an increase of 114%.

As such, for your prediction to be correct, wages would have to represent 146% of the total cost of producing a hamburger. Which is, of course, completely nuts.

It's horrible when people don't realize that minimum wage hikes drives up the cost of living, soon making said minimum wage hike irrelevant.

It's a lot more horrible when people just make up stupid numbers in their heads, and use those stupid numbers to justify someone else being paid a really, really gakky wage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
But that's the thing. Unless you still want to pay shareholders the same amount of profit, which admittedly that is what the standard model calls for, then yes, the burger has to go up.

But if you accept that you're still making insane amounts of money, not just as much, then the burger can remain at the same price.

Or more likely, the company takes a small hit on its bottom line, and the burger goes up slightly in price. The wealthy earn a little less return on their shares, and the middle class pay slightly more for a hamburger, while the working poor get something close to a decent wage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have never heard of someone trying t support a family as a Mcdonalds employee. Granted that is my experiance. but over here most of college students or immigrants.

The median age of fast food workers in the US is 28.

I mean, I think we all agree that fast food work is supposed to be a temporary thing that you do while you're young and wanting some spare cash, but unfortunately that isn't what's happening in the real world. And so when those jobs really are what people are forced to take, well then we need to recognise that and accept that they need to be paid a decent wage that can provide a decent life for their kids.

Even if that means quarter pounders increase by 4 or 5%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink.

Fortunately it's complete and total bs that the price would reach those levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I wouldn't call wanting basic things like universal healthcare and being able to afford shelter, post-secondary education and food greedy but whatever.

I think it's the blackest of comedy that a person complaining about their hamburger going up by 3-5% would call the person wanting a living wage greedy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Honesty, studying sweden as a model for the United States is pointless. Their population demographics look nothing like ours (few countries do). Further, it's much easier to institute socialist ideals on smaller populations of like individuals than it is in a country as diverse as the United States.

Really, the idea that you can only have a higher tax rate and spend that money on public goods when everyone has the same skin colour and the population doesn't exceed x is just completely nuts.

I mean, there's lots of reasons that the Swedish model won't work in the US, but they're all cultural, and almost entirely reliant on that strange conviction that freedom means having a low top marginal tax rate.

When you guys entered the Second World War you transitioned in to a state planned control economy incredibly quickly and with remarkably little difficulty, and the presence of people who weren't white and having a population larger than Sweden didn't impact that at all.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
For an air force pilot (that is you, right?)

Please don't ever insult me like that again.

It's almost as though you believe that those jets magically appeared, and weren't at all the byproduct of a push to promote post-secondary education.

So commissioning officers in the military is an elaborate "go to university!" scheme? That's a new one.

I don't believe you're this obtuse without actually trying to miss the point. Commissioned officers didn't design or build the planes; I'm not sure why you brought them up.

cincydooley wrote:How is that? Please, enlighten me. There's a world of difference between a university education and trade education. Huge. I took classes on Medieval literature. They're worthless. I'd much rather have taken an engine repair class as a trade school.

Medieval literature falls under the broad category of "arts", which is part of an education, as opposed to merely being trained. Being educated is what makes someone a complete person. Training without education just makes you a tool to be used by complete persons. Even past that, the arts tend to be what makes life worthwhile. However much you may love being an electrician, I'm willing to bet that you don't spend your leisure time reading up on how to be more of an electrician. The media you enjoy? the culture? That came from the Arts.

So next time you want to be entertained, I suggest you either open up some electrical diagnostic manuals and read those for your enjoyment, or else eat your words about medieval literature being worthless. It might not be to your tastes (odd, if you chose to take the class to begin with) but it is to someone, just as that movie or band you like might be construed as worthless to some other tradesperson without the ability to see past his own nose.

One of my degrees is in English. You're missing the point. My point is that all of the medieval lit I read, all of the Shelly and Byron and Chaucer, they have little to no impact on my life or job now. They're functionally worthless.

So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, your ascertain that people that are "trained" in a trade are simply tools to be manipulated is insulting. There are plenty of opportunities to be well rounded critical thinkers within the realm of a a given trade. No arts required.

Oh, and in addition to having a degree in English, I also was in an acapella group in college and directed two plays while I was a teacher. So I fully appreciate the value of the arts.

 cincydooley wrote:
So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet.

The mistake here is in thinking of literature and automotive repair as an either/or thing.

That isn't just your mistake, of course, but one made by pretty much every tertiary education system in the world. We've transformed universities from places of higher learning to vocational colleges for white collar jobs, without really spending the time to consider how that might best operate.

As such, the idea that a person might train to become a car mechanic, but have access to elective courses in history or whatever else, that they could take purely for the sake of being a better educated, smarter person has been ignored entirely. Similarly, the idea that a person might want to become an doctor, but might also find an elective unit on car maintenance and repair both interesting and beneficial just doesn't register.

 azazel the cat wrote:
.

cincydooley wrote:How is that? Please, enlighten me. There's a world of difference between a university education and trade education. Huge. I took classes on Medieval literature. They're worthless. I'd much rather have taken an engine repair class as a trade school.

Medieval literature falls under the broad category of "arts", which is part of an education, as opposed to merely being trained. Being educated is what makes someone a complete person. Training without education just makes you a tool to be used by complete persons. Even past that, the arts tend to be what makes life worthwhile. However much you may love being an electrician, I'm willing to bet that you don't spend your leisure time reading up on how to be more of an electrician. The media you enjoy? the culture? That came from the Arts.

So next time you want to be entertained, I suggest you either open up some electrical diagnostic manuals and read those for your enjoyment, or else eat your words about medieval literature being worthless. It might not be to your tastes (odd, if you chose to take the class to begin with) but it is to someone, just as that movie or band you like might be construed as worthless to some other tradesperson without the ability to see past his own nose.

No class is ever useless. There are useless majors. but classes are never useless. I took a philosophy class as a electiv filler. Can I do anything practical?No not really. But it was interesting and broadened my knowledge, same with the film class, it allows me to enjoy films in new ways. Taking different classes boradens your mind. Nobel Prize Winners are never exclusive to their interests, they study many things on off time for joy.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet.

The mistake here is in thinking of literature and automotive repair as an either/or thing.

That isn't just your mistake, of course, but one made by pretty much every tertiary education system in the world. We've transformed universities from places of higher learning to vocational colleges for white collar jobs, without really spending the time to consider how that might best operate.

As such, the idea that a person might train to become a car mechanic, but have access to elective courses in history or whatever else, that they could take purely for the sake of being a better educated, smarter person has been ignored entirely. Similarly, the idea that a person might want to become an doctor, but might also find an elective unit on car maintenance and repair both interesting and beneficial just doesn't register.

That actually sounds like a great idea is there any universities that do that?

 Cheesecat wrote:
That actually sounds like a great idea is there any universities that do that?

None that I know of. Universities and vocational colleges here in Australia are starting to work together more closely* and the idea has come out of that, but I don't think it's past the talking stage anywhere.

It seems not only a good idea, but a really good starting point for realising how much of our tertiary education is still based on how things used to work generations ago (trade school vs life of the mind stuff... these days they're both about teaching you a job and the seperation is increasingly artificial).



*So mechanics at a vocational college might be able to take an elective in some complex physics thing that relates to their course at the engineering dept of a university.

In the US many schools have separate admission policies for students that are not seeking a degree, so a person studying a trade might also enroll as a student at a school offering a physics course. Additionally, good community colleges offer vocational training as well as education in subjects such as physics.

 dogma wrote:
In the US many schools have separate admission policies for students that are not seeking a degree, so a person studying a trade might also enroll as a student at a school offering a physics course. Additionally, good community colleges offer vocational training as well as education in subjects such as physics.

The same is offered here, but there's no government subsidy for students who aren't part of degree programs which means you can pay four or five times as much and so no-one other than some bored doctor's wives does it (though funnily enough its still less than you're likely to pay in the US ).

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't believe you're this obtuse without actually trying to miss the point. Commissioned officers didn't design or build the planes; I'm not sure why you brought them up.

I'm not sure why you brought the planes up, either, but you say a lot of crazy gak, so I just went with it.

So building planes is just a back door method of incentivizing college. Got it. That's not flying rodent gak at all.

 cincydooley wrote:
One of my degrees is in English. You're missing the point. My point is that all of the medieval lit I read, all of the Shelly and Byron and Chaucer, they have little to no impact on my life or job now. They're functionally worthless.

So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, your ascertain that people that are "trained" in a trade are simply tools to be manipulated is insulting. There are plenty of opportunities to be well rounded critical thinkers within the realm of a a given trade. No arts required.

Oh, and in addition to having a degree in English, I also was in an acapella group in college and directed two plays while I was a teacher. So I fully appreciate the value of the arts.

You're missing a grander point about reading shelley and byron though...

Yes, quoting them directly may not be a part of your individually daily life. However, the study, and analysis of them has contributed to the thinker you are today.

The same can be said of my law education. My bosses love me and assign me non-construction project related special assignments because i'm very analytical, and an excellent contingency theorist. This is directly because of my law education - analyzing precedent, stare decisis, case law, etc. It's because of my education that i'm excellent at dissecting any process, finding flaws, weaknesses, things that can go wrong. Other PM's hate it when i'm assigned to critique their project, but my superiors like it, because we end up with a stronger process.

This is all due to my law education - i did not just pop out of the womb that way.

So even those things that may seem to have no direct correlation, at the time, they contributed, piecemeal, to the intellect you now possess.

Rome was not built in a day. Neither is the human intellect.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
In the US many schools have separate admission policies for students that are not seeking a degree, so a person studying a trade might also enroll as a student at a school offering a physics course. Additionally, good community colleges offer vocational training as well as education in subjects such as physics.

I think you're praising community colleges here, and if so, i'll second that.

I learned a lot at my community college, and had some incredible professors. I recommend a good community college to anyone. Save money and just as good, sometimes, better education, and you're surrounded, mostly by a student body that is there because they want to be, not just because it's the thing to do.



Edits: gah, i can't spell today.

 sebster wrote:
Absolutely. But humans aren't rational animals - they're unlikely to get bothered by something they can't see - like the automated process that produced their chocolate bar, while they are likely to bothered if they look in the fast food restaurant and see hardly any humans.

That said, I doubt that's all that much of an issue. People make noise and threaten to boycott a store, and then a week later there's some other issue and everyone is turning up to that place again. Remember the Chik-a-fila nonsense? Loads of anti-gay marriage people turned up, and loads of pro-gay marriage people boycotted, and a few weeks later everyone became sensible again, and started basing their decision on what they wanted to eat. People make lots of noise if a new Walmart opens up, but then a few months later everyone shops there.

The best way to an American's political beliefs is through the brands they buy from!

 sebster wrote:
The median age of fast food workers in the US is 28.

Median, maybe. That's hardly a useful statistic. Find the average age, and you'll find that it's much, much lower. A little bit misleading.

Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be a career. They are dead-end bottom of the skill level jobs. I know, I have one, and every minute sucks. At least for me, a pay increase would not make it any better to put up with.

They are jobs you are supposed to start out with and then better yourself and move up.

Why is everyone thinking that it's in a vacuum of ONE worker being increased to $15 an hour, and how that won't increase the cost of cheeseburgers?

Currently it's $7.25. Increase that to $15, that's $7.75 increase per person, PER HOUR. Now multiply that per person working (Usually about ten in these sorts of places), and that's $77.50 extra you as a CEO are losing, PER HOUR. If all of them are part time and only work 20 hours a week (Being conservative), that's $1550 you are losing, per week, per store.

Now let's say there are two stores in every city; $3100 lost, in one week. Let's say there are twenty cities in each state that are large enough to support two McD's, and that's $62,000, per state, per week. Fifty states in the union, and that's $3,100,000, per week.

In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.

Keep in mind that you have people working both less and more than 20 hours, prices of certain items differ, more/less towns can support more/less McD's, yadda yadda yadda. Wage increases quickly build up.....

Not saying that I'm for or against this due to labor's worth or whatever, but that's a massive amount of money because you are essentially doubling their salary. Prices WILL go up, and people will stop going to Mc Donalds; I can pay eight dollars for a Big Mac, or I can go to Buffalo Wild Wings and get a decent burger for nine dollars....


McD's thrives off of cheap food that anyone can afford, if you increase the salary of their workers by that much, Mcdonalds as we know it will cease to be (Might not be a bad thing) due to their primary strength in the food industry being nullified.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be a career.

No one has argued that they should; having a livable wage isn't the same as being a career.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.

It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.

 Ahtman wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.

It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.

People who have money typically only keep it because they don't like seeing it leave; i.e. they are incredibly cheap.

The moment they lose their money from increasing salaries, they will figure out a way to get that money back.

*Ominous voice/music* Mark my woooooooords......

Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.

 cincydooley wrote:
Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.

I doubt $15 an hour could get you that so you won't have to worry then.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.

It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.

People who have money typically only keep it because they don't like seeing it leave; i.e. they are incredibly cheap.

The moment they lose their money from increasing salaries, they will figure out a way to get that money back.

*Ominous voice/music* Mark my woooooooords......

By that reasoning they don't even want to pay their employees salaries in the first place, as it would allow them to keep more of their precious monies. They did, of course, used to do things like that, in the form of corporate serfdom, slavery, indentured servitude, sweat shops, ect. If the minimum wage (a product of realizing companies and people will screw others over if given a chance) is increased they will adjust and move on as they always have, kicking and screaming all the way, as they always have.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.

It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.

People who have money typically only keep it because they don't like seeing it leave; i.e. they are incredibly cheap.

The moment they lose their money from increasing salaries, they will figure out a way to get that money back.

*Ominous voice/music* Mark my woooooooords......

By that reasoning they don't even want to pay their employees salaries in the first place, as it would allow them to keep more of their precious monies. They did, of course, used to do things like that, in the form of corporate serfdom, slavery, indentured servitude, sweat shops, ect. If the minimum wage (a product of realizing companies and people will screw others over if given a chance) is increased they will adjust and move on as they always have, kicking and screaming all the way, as they always have.

Then why do corporations hire illegal workers, buy parts from china, or store money in foreign banks? Because it saves them money, and at the end of the day, all they need to do to keep their job is keep the company in the Black.


And that's what I'm saying, the Price of the burger will increase because they will adjust and move on.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.

I doubt $15 an hour could get you that so you won't have to worry then.

But that's what's expected as part of this "livable wage". That's the point. As someone that has waited to have kids until we can afford them the way feel is responsible, I have very little pity for people that have kids and are expecting to be able to support them while working as a fry cook at a fast food restaurant.

But then again, I don't think you should be able to get Red Bull with WIC (in Ohio you certainly can) so I'm probably just a callous bastard.

In this economy, Cincy, that time will never come for millions of Americans. So, the poors just shouldn't breed, then?

I don't think you understand just how little opportunity there is in the US right now for someone who wasn't born into the middle class. Just because YOU made it, doesn't mean all the people who didn't are complete failures who should essentially self-sterilise.

Also, deciding all the people who had unplanned children that they don't deserve a living wage will put their children firmly into the "never getting a break" camp. Congratulations, you just started a cycle.

No, no, the poor are weak and should be punished for it. It's Uncle Sam's, and by extension, God's will. Duh.

Wait? I'm suppose to feel bad for those that are stuck in a Fast Food job who has no future? Those who pretty much in their mind condemn themselves to their situation? Are we going by the assumption that Fast Food workers consist of high school students, spouses, and older age individuals? Are we probably thinking of individuals who rather not make "sacrifices" but stay in an area they know? IMO its the individual motivation to improve their life. IMO I do not owe these individuals in any sense or form anything.

What gets me is how many people seem to have no idea how money actually works. High-paying McJobs would be a very quick way to devalue your currency. It's like the idea of printing trillions of new dollars to pay off the US national debt (or that stupid trillion-dollar coin idea): sure, it would technically work, but it would ruin our economy because it would make our currency a complete joke.

Jihadin, I take the stance of showing people how to better themselves. True, nobody owes them anything, but if they're willing to learn, and if someone is willing to teach them, then everyone benefits. Giving them massive raises because they think they deserve it wouldn't solve anything, and probably wouldn't improve their quality of life, either. A lot of folks just don't know how to manage their finances; one article described a worker as struggling to pay a numb of expenses, one of which was CABLE TV. Sorry, entertainment is NOT a necessity, but a lot of folks consider it so, and it represents a significant drain on their finances. I remember one guy who got personally offended (and angry) when someone suggested that if maybe he didn't spend so much on snacks and cigarettes each month, he migh actually have enough in his social security check to pay for a place to live.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
In this economy, Cincy, that time will never come for millions of Americans. So, the poors just shouldn't breed, then?

Honestly? I feel like the beginning 5 minutes of Idiocracy gets more true every day. And that makes me sad for our country.

I don't think you understand just how little opportunity there is in the US right now for someone who wasn't born into the middle class. Just because YOU made it, doesn't mean all the people who didn't are complete failures who should essentially self-sterilise.

As someone that WAS laid off, yes, I do understand. It took me 10 days to find something to supplement my incredibly paltry and inconsistent substitute teaching income. Because I looked and didn't consider any job below me. I never said they were failures, but I'm sorry. Non-management Fast Food is literally the bottom rung of employment. If that's "all you can find" you're not looking hard enough, or at all.

Also, deciding all the people who had unplanned children that they don't deserve a living wage will put their children firmly into the "never getting a break" camp. Congratulations, you just started a cycle.

I don't think anyone deserves anything. You have to make the right choices and earn what you get. And let's be honest. Not having a kid isn't hard at all. I've been having regular sex with my wife for 10 years and we've never gotten pregnant. And it's been a lot cheaper than a kid would ever be.

Further, a single part time job is not intended to support a family.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gearhead wrote:
them massive raises because they think they deserve it wouldn't solve anything, and probably wouldn't improve their quality of life, either. A lot of folks just don't know how to manage their finances; one article described a worker as struggling to pay a numb of expenses, one of which was CABLE TV. Sorry, entertainment is NOT a necessity, but a lot of folks consider it so, and it represents a significant drain on their finances. I remember one guy who got personally offended (and angry) when someone suggested that if maybe he didn't spend so much on snacks and cigarettes each month, he migh actually have enough in his social security check to pay for a place to live.

See, this is the thing I have a real problem with. People include so many things in these "livable wage" evaluations that have no business being in there. Cable, Internet, cell phones, cigarettes, snack food, etc.

 Gearhead wrote:
What gets me is how many people seem to have no idea how money actually works. High-paying McJobs would be a very quick way to devalue your currency. It's like the idea of printing trillions of new dollars to pay off the US national debt (or that stupid trillion-dollar coin idea): sure, it would technically work, but it would ruin our economy because it would make our currency a complete joke.

Do you specialize in economics?