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.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
What is a living wage?

In public policy, a living wage or subsistence wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition.

Generally, you seek work that hopefully
1.) You like
2.) Pays what you think you are worth

If those two things cant be met in your area, the age old tradition was to move to where you could find something that met those two criteria. Or you just worked your butt off to make the $$ you want.

And when you have insufficient money to live (i.e. a living wage), how exactly do you move somewhere else to get a better job? Moving is not cheap.

I left a very lucrative area/industry for a more rural existence. I am happier now, making about 1/2 what I used to make. Yes I work 3 jobs, but that's because I chose to live where I live, and I like my 3 jobs. I get paid gak at the gun store, but I get things at cost, and I get 10% of internet sales that I post.

So you had money and chose to make less money. Okay, that's easy. You had the money to move and chose to move. How do you move if you don't have the money to move? Walk to another state with better jobs?

If Walmart isnt paying enough, then leave for someone else who is.

What if there are no other jobs in your area?

 Spacemanvic wrote:
What is a living wage?

Generally, you seek work that hopefully
1.) You like
2.) Pays what you think you are worth

If those two things cant be met in your area, the age old tradition was to move to where you could find something that met those two criteria. Or you just worked your butt off to make the $$ you want.

I left a very lucrative area/industry for a more rural existence. I am happier now, making about 1/2 what I used to make. Yes I work 3 jobs, but that's because I chose to live where I live, and I like my 3 jobs. I get paid gak at the gun store, but I get things at cost, and I get 10% of internet sales that I post.

If Walmart isnt paying enough, then leave for someone else who is.

Very well said.

You guys do know that there are parts of the country where even the concept of a sit-down job you like are foreign to the majority of the populace. They simply can't conceive of it, because those kind of jobs don't exist...

If Walmart is the only game in town, you can't just say 'Oh I'll go work somewhere where they treat me right'. There is no other place to work.

 pretre wrote:
You guys do know that there are parts of the country where even the concept of a sit-down job you like are foreign to the majority of the populace. They simply can't conceive of it, because those kind of jobs don't exist...

If Walmart is the only game in town, you can't just say 'Oh I'll go work somewhere where they treat me right'. There is no other place to work.

Then that person can move to where the jobs are?

 Spacemanvic wrote:
What is a living wage?

The poverty line is fairly well defined. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm. My personal take on what a living wage is, is a wage that doesn't require you to turn to the government for handouts. Close to 50% of walmart workers qualify for foodstamps. That means that those workers are being underpaid, and my taxes are making up the difference. Walmart can afford to pay more, but they don't, because Alice Walton likes to see her name high on the Forbes list.

Generally, you seek work that hopefully
1.) You like
2.) Pays what you think you are worth

If those two things cant be met in your area, the age old tradition was to move to where you could find something that met those two criteria. Or you just worked your butt off to make the $$ you want.

I left a very lucrative area/industry for a more rural existence. I am happier now, making about 1/2 what I used to make. Yes I work 3 jobs, but that's because I chose to live where I live, and I like my 3 jobs. I get paid gak at the gun store, but I get things at cost, and I get 10% of internet sales that I post.

If Walmart isnt paying enough, then leave for someone else who is.

This is a fairly narrow view to take. Unemployment in the US is still very high. "Someone else" probably doesn't exist. When Walmart posts a job opening and has 400 applicants, in spite of well-known wage deficiencies and work conditions, that's a good sign that there aren't other options. Not everyone can move somewhere else easily either, there are things like family considerations, and moving both costs money, and then deprives you of any existing support network.

Walmart, and other big national chains, are frequently responsible for the lack of other options. When a Walmart comes to town, local businesses close down. Often these businesses have been members of the community for years and have paid solid wages to their few employees. They simply cannot compete with Walmart's economy-of-scale purchasing power. Walmart may offer lower prices, but having a Walmart move into your area has been proven to depress wages across the board in the surrounding communities. The same guy who ran a local mom&pop store is now working at Walmart for half as much.

 pities2004 wrote:
Then that person can move to where the jobs are?

How exactly do you do that if you currently aren't making enough money to live?
Let's assume you manage to scrounge bus money by not eating or feeding your kids.
You arrive 'where the jobs are'. How do you live there while you try to find this job?

It is easy to move somewhere for a new job when you already have an okay job. (I've done it.) It isn't easy when you're not making a living wage or are unemployed already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:
Close to 50% of walmart workers qualify for foodstamps. That means that those workers are being underpaid, and my taxes are making up the difference. Walmart can afford to pay more, but they don't, because Alice Walton likes to see her name high on the Forbes list.

I think a lot of bootstrappers don't realize this. You're already paying for these people. If Walmart paid them more, you would pay less for these people. You literally win if Walmart pays these folks a living wage because you pay less taxes by not having to support the millions of people working for Walmart.

 Redbeard wrote:

 whembly wrote:
@Redbeard et, el...

What are you arguing for... specifically?

I'm in favour of a raise to minimum wage and getting rid of loopholes that allow employers to work someone 39.5 hours. I think anyone who works full time, regardless of how "lowly" their job may seem, deserves to earn a living wage. While I doubt this will happen, I favour a return to a 1960's level (inflation adjusted) minimum wage and tax rates, even though in the short-term, this would probably affect me negatively (I'd have to pay more taxes, and it would take a few years before the real economic engine gains would be realized).

I believe we've been sold a false hope ("trickle-down economics") that has proven to do nothing but line the pockets of the already wealthy, and believe we'd all be better off returning to a pre-Reagan economic model. I believe this would also require an adjustment to the corporate culture that says the corporate responsibility is solely to the stockholder (another 80'sism that provides questionable moral justification for poor corporate citizenship). Prior to this, corporations typically took responsibility for their employees and their communities, as well as their shareholders. (I read a good article on this recently, but can't remember where).

Fair enough... I'd be willing to have another national discussion on raising the minimum wage... but I'm very skeptical that it needs to be $15/ hr. (fwiw, I think we'd can easily shoulder it to be $9/hr with major negatve economic impact).

However... pre-Reagan economic model would be a disaster now. Also, going full-bore "supply-side" economic right now wouldn't work because the incentives to expand/research/invest isn't quite there yet, as folks are sitting on their money right now... waiting... for something.

I think we need to re-emphasize on training/educating the workforce to be more nimble than to force business to "support us". That's why UNION shops are such a dying species... and for the life of me, I don't understand why UNIONs don't embrace this concept (being more nimble). That's why you're seeing folks getting higher jobs that they really didn't go to school for... (see Alf's case).

*shrugs* I'm just leery of the government intervening to mandate "living wage" laws... time, time again we've seen unintended consquences... such as the ACA law. I.E. for smaller companies, it's in THEIR best interest to minimize their full-time employees below 50.

 pretre wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Then that person can move to where the jobs are?

How exactly do you do that if you currently aren't making enough money to live?
Let's assume you manage to scrounge bus money by not eating or feeding your kids.
You arrive 'where the jobs are'. How do you live there while you try to find this job?

It is easy to move somewhere for a new job when you already have an okay job. (I've done it.) It isn't easy when you're not making a living wage or are unemployed already.

Easy, here is what I did.

Lost my job at Wells Fargo making 9 dollars an hour as a collector when I was 19. I couldn't find employment other than ShopKo (Shopko is like a small ghetto Target) I was getting paid 7 dollars an hour as a cashier. As I could barely afford to live I had to find a way out.

So I joined the Navy

I was making pretty good money in the Navy, worked my arse off to get to where I am.

The Navy paid for my school and once I was out i was able to get a position in a related field.

I am sure nearly everyone can relate to being in hard times but it's up to the person to take measures to make sure they are happy. I have a hard time taking pity on people when I know when I was in the same situation I overcame it and made a living for myself.

Everyone in America has the opportunity to build a life for themselves and there family. It all has to do with how motivated you are.



This is my experience.

 pities2004 wrote:
Easy, here is what I did.

Lost my job at Wells Fargo making 9 dollars an hour as a collector when I was 19. I couldn't find employment other than ShopKo (Shopko is like a small ghetto Target) I was getting paid 7 dollars an hour as a cashier. As I could barely afford to live I had to find a way out.

So I joined the Navy

I was making pretty good money in the Navy, worked my arse off to get to where I am.

The Navy paid for my school and once I was out i was able to get a position in a related field.

I am sure nearly everyone can relate to being in hard times but it's up to the person to take measures to make sure they are happy. I have a hard time taking pity on people when I know when I was in the same situation I overcame it and made a living for myself.

Everyone in America has the opportunity to build a life for themselves and there family. It all has to do with motivated you are.

This is my experience.

So everyone who is not making a living wage should join a branch of the military? That's your solution? Just because you were able to make it in the military doesn't mean that everyone can. Not to mention that the government can't afford to hire everyone.

 pretre wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:
Close to 50% of walmart workers qualify for foodstamps. That means that those workers are being underpaid, and my taxes are making up the difference. Walmart can afford to pay more, but they don't, because Alice Walton likes to see her name high on the Forbes list.

I think a lot of bootstrappers don't realize this. You're already paying for these people. If Walmart paid them more, you would pay less for these people. You literally win if Walmart pays these folks a living wage because you pay less taxes by not having to support the millions of people working for Walmart.

Sooo... are you advocating a "Walmart tax"?

Or, a Walmart specific living wage law? Similar to what DC passed? Guess what? Walmart was going to open up 3 new stores in the more impoverish areas in DC... but, since this law... they backed out.

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... are you advocating a "Walmart tax"?

Or, a Walmart specific living wage law? Similar to what DC passed? Guess what? Walmart was going to open up 3 new stores in the more impoverish areas in DC... but, since this law... they backed out.

Force it across the board in the US. Then they can't back out. Which would you rather have? More jobs that don't pay a living wage and cost the tax payers more or the same number (or even less) of jobs that pay a living wage and don't cost taxpayers.

Do we really need more crappy jobs that force people to go on government aid?

 pretre wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Easy, here is what I did.

Lost my job at Wells Fargo making 9 dollars an hour as a collector when I was 19. I couldn't find employment other than ShopKo (Shopko is like a small ghetto Target) I was getting paid 7 dollars an hour as a cashier. As I could barely afford to live I had to find a way out.

So I joined the Navy

I was making pretty good money in the Navy, worked my arse off to get to where I am.

The Navy paid for my school and once I was out i was able to get a position in a related field.

I am sure nearly everyone can relate to being in hard times but it's up to the person to take measures to make sure they are happy. I have a hard time taking pity on people when I know when I was in the same situation I overcame it and made a living for myself.

Everyone in America has the opportunity to build a life for themselves and there family. It all has to do with motivated you are.

This is my experience.

So everyone who is not making a living wage should join a branch of the military? That's your solution? Just because you were able to make it in the military doesn't mean that everyone can. Not to mention that the government can't afford to hire everyone.

That is my solution as that's why I said

"This is my experience"

I didn't say this is what everyone needs to do, it worked for me I was just stating to your point in saying you can't do anything if you are stuck in a town only working at walmart.

 pretre wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... are you advocating a "Walmart tax"?

Or, a Walmart specific living wage law? Similar to what DC passed? Guess what? Walmart was going to open up 3 new stores in the more impoverish areas in DC... but, since this law... they backed out.

Force it across the board in the US. Then they can't back out. Which would you rather have? More jobs that don't pay a living wage and cost the tax payers more or the same number (or even less) of jobs that pay a living wage and don't cost taxpayers.

Do we really need more crappy jobs that force people to go on government aid?

So... we're back to raising the National Min Wage.

Okay...

 pities2004 wrote:
That is my solution as that's why I said

"This is my experience"

Okay, but that doesn't work for everyone. I am glad that you managed to pull yourself up. Why begrudge someone else a different solution then? Obviously, your solution won't work for everyone. So saying 'Hey, I did well. Why don't they all do what I did?' isn't really helpful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... we're back to raising the National Min Wage.

Okay...

I think it is a bit different than that, although that is part of it. Redbeard already brought up the business of 32-39.5 hour jobs just to screw people out of benefits and pay.

Simply making Walmart raise the wage will probably not fix the problem, however. Because then they will just hire more folks and have them all work 10 hours a week.

But there are still options out there for people to get out from working at Walmart.

It's not rocket science.

If it was maybe they could get the 25 dollars they are asking for.

 pities2004 wrote:
But there are still options out there for people to get out from working at Walmart.

It's not rocket science.

If it was maybe they could get the 25 dollars they are asking for.

Okay, what are those options? Be specific.

If you live in a backass town in East Bumfeth, North Dakota, what exactly is your option? Walmart came in and closed down all the other similar retail businesses. So where do you work?

 pretre wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
But there are still options out there for people to get out from working at Walmart.

It's not rocket science.

If it was maybe they could get the 25 dollars they are asking for.

Okay, what are those options? Be specific.

If you live in a backass town in East Bumfeth, North Dakota, what exactly is your option? Walmart came in and closed down all the other similar retail businesses. So where do you work?

I grew up in South Dakota and was able to do something with my life.

Apples to apples.

 pities2004 wrote:

I grew up in South Dakota and was able to do something with my life.

Apples to apples.

You joined the Navy. I completely agree with you that joining the military is ONE way of getting yourself out of poverty. Stop bringing it up because it isn't going to work for everyone in South Dakota. The government can't afford to hire everyone who isn't earning a living wage.

So what's your option if you don't join the military? Go on the dole? Walk to Minnesota?

Pretty much, we are all getting played.

We were sold the bill of goods that "our economy must transition from a manufacturing base to a service base". Those jobs got shipped off. All we have left are chump jobs like Walmart in many areas of the country.

Now service jobs are shipped off. Anyone call HP or Dell lately?

Then, we get a string of progressives in office who spend money we dont have, or demand that banks give loans to people who cant pay (then cover the loses for the banks), or get us into wars we couldnt afford.

Then we get litigation out the wazoo that increases medical costs, then reward an over-charging medical industry by hiring executives of those industries to run government oversite that in turn INCREASES those medical costs to us and the government, lining the pocket of both the medical industry AND legislators. And now we get a broke government over-reaching it's Constitutional limitations by attempting to control our health, and written into the legislation make it so that employers would want to limit their workers to part time to avoid STEEP costs imposed by that same government. And it only serves to make those employees more dependent on the government for health/income.

Oh, and then that same broke government makes it so that those unemployed would want to stay unemployed living like serfs on a government handout.
Making matters even BETTER, this same government floods the employee pool by making it even easier for illegal aliens to enter an already distressed country. Oh, and then that broke government's social services get even more stressed/depleted as it struggles to keep up with the artificially inflated demand.

On top of that, the government continues to stretch its reach and encroach on the Rights of the people to privacy, self defense and speech. All in the name of Security. Security for who?

We are all being played.

There is no real difference between Democrat/Republican lately. Crony capitalism is running amok, the ultra wealthy are getting richer, the poor are being "kept", the middle working class are being squeezed into serfdom, and the political class is too busy insulating itself from the laws it creates on us as well as making BUCKETS of money. The media gives them cover to do all this, being complicit rather than being the watchdog..

 pities2004 wrote:


I grew up in South Dakota and was able to do something with my life.

Apples to apples.

Great. So your experience, one person, invalidates the poor job market?

Sorry, it ain't apples to apples. Don't dodge the question. What do you expect people to do?

 pretre wrote:

Okay...

I think it is a bit different than that, although that is part of it. Redbeard already brought up the business of 32-39.5 hour jobs just to screw people out of benefits and pay.

Simply making Walmart raise the wage will probably not fix the problem, however. Because then they will just hire more folks and have them all work 10 hours a week.

 pretre wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:

I grew up in South Dakota and was able to do something with my life.

Apples to apples.

You joined the Navy. I completely agree with you that joining the military is ONE way of getting yourself out of poverty. Stop bringing it up because it isn't going to work for everyone in South Dakota. The government can't afford to hire everyone who isn't earning a living wage.

So what's your option if you don't join the military? Go on the dole? Walk to Minnesota?

So your suggestion is just continue to sit on your butt and work at walmart and EXPECT to get paid 25 dollars an hour?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:


I grew up in South Dakota and was able to do something with my life.

Apples to apples.

Great. So your experience, one person, invalidates the poor job market?

Sorry, it ain't apples to apples. Don't dodge the question. What do you expect people to do?

No but my experience shows that you can't just sit there and expect to get paid what you want.

 whembly wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere...

I actually think that Walmart & Walmart employee would benefit if they'd Unionize (See UPS). The initial years would be wonkey as Walmart would have to reduce staffing and there would be some price fluctuations. But, in the end, things would work itself out just fine.

As to "the business of 32-39.5 hour jobs just to screw people out of benefits and pay"... it gets worst:
In the ACA [ur=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980H]30 hours[/url] is considered "full-time". That's a disincentive for employers for scheduling more hours.

Maybe we need to look at the state/fed laws and regulations to reduce these non-incentives with respect to these benefits.

I'm iffy on unions. They can do great good and do great harm. I think making Walmart a union shop might actually benefit their industry though.

Your final point is definitely what I mean though. We need to look at the climate (regulatory and legal) that makes it a good idea for big companies to treat their workers like gak and get away with it. We need to do that without penalizing the little companies that don't do those things. That's the hard part. The problem being that, of course, Walmart can get away with whatever they want and increased regulation often doesn't really hurt them whereas it usually hurts the little guys proportionately more.

I was raised in poverty, often times I had to eat at a soup kitchen and got my school supplies and clothes from donations. This was in South Dakota where the work opportunities are not that great. Looks like I broke the statistics.

Sad times when the backlash is if you want to get paid more you can just refuse to work.


I think I'm done here.

Alfndrate wrote:

The college system in our country is fethed up beyond belief.

Edit: For what it's worth, I still have plans to go into teaching, just probably not for the next 4 years or so until I get a few things paid off...

I agree it is fethed up. College professors are less qualified to teach than most public school teachers. But what else is fethed up is the lie they have sold to people going to college.

Also, Won't you lose your certification and be unable to teach if you don't obtain your masters within 5 years? So what good does working for 4 years 'elsewhere' do when by time you are ready to teach you are 1 year within being certified in your field?

cincydooley wrote:Additionally, your whole "10 months of work" claim is a complete fallacy in regards to any teacher that is actually good at their job. It's a little insulting, actually. But that's the general attitude in the States towards teachers, so it isn't wholly unexpected..

How is it a fallacy? Teachers are contractually paid for 10 month employment regardless of how hard they work. They are literally locked out of the building and unable to work for those 2 months by union requirement. Even the best teachers who work 12 hour days during the school year literally do not spend all summer 'working' for nothing.

Getting an annual salary for 10 months of employment allows you to spend those other 2 months working somewhere else if you so choose. I have friends who would work at the beach as bartenders for 2 months and make thousands of dollars int hat time to supplement their income. Others did summer camp which saves them 2 months of utilities and such. Others save money and then 'don't work' all summer.

Teachers who work in the summer get stipends and extra pay increasing their annual income. Sure some stipends are woefully underpaid for the effort, but it is still income.

So comparing a teachers annual income to another 'full time annual income' is very valid to mention they go unworking for 2 months out of the year which means they are free to make 'more' income where someone who works 12 months at a job with a similar annual income doesn't have the freedom to spend 2 months working elsewhere.

But look at what a teacher has to go through even to make that much, but yet walmart people should make more than a teacher simply because they are entitled to a 'living wage' which includes a lot of luxuries? And they think somehow this happens in a vacuum where they end up making 25$ an hour but the costs of all the other goods and services in the world stay exactly the same? That is all madness.

FYI: I rented rooms to college graduates to help them get along. Renting a room is still very common way to survive and while you may lose some of your personal freedoms living under someone else's roof, you can afford to live there. There is no expectation that a 'living wage' should guarantee someone a place to live by themselves or to support a family of 4. Those are luxuries. I know many people who had to get a roomate, take in a border or even be a boarder with their kids in tow. People do it every day.

really... more people who only have skills worth minimum wage, wanting more then their work is worth...

sure go ahead and strike, more power too you, not gonna hurt me any if people make more $...


but this is just delusional... its minimum wage, get some skills, get a better job,

or start your own wal mart type company that pays more to its minimum skill workers and see how profitable you are...

bottom of the barrel jobs deserve bottom of the barrel pay...

next you will be telling me that mcdonalds workers, who have an easy job that literally any warm body can do, will be wanting 15$ an hour or something rediculous like that...


minimum skill = minimum wage...


if the argument is that they literally cannot get a better job, then again, that is the result of them possesing minimum skills/education/ect...

Why do people possess minimum skills and education?

What I find interesting is that the people who have ultimate control in the choices of wages is fine with all this.

When one small group of people can create such a positive situation for such a large amount of lives and doesn't act on it it feels weird.

 pities2004 wrote:
I was raised in poverty, often times I had to eat at a soup kitchen and got my school supplies and clothes from donations. This was in South Dakota where the work opportunities are not that great. Looks like I broke the statistics.

Sad times when the backlash is if you want to get paid more you can just refuse to work.


I think I'm done here.

yeah, i agree with you, as someone who, did not have a vehicle, had to live on 1$ of food a day, live in a 300$ a month rented room instead of a real apartment, with no tv, internet, utilize labour ready type jobs (where you make less then minumum wage, because the labour office takes a cut of your minimum hourly wage)

it was hard
but that is the point... you only get ahead if you are willing to endure all that hardship, and do without all the useless wants that people seem to think they "need"

not statistic breaking IMO, everyone I know who has a "pull up by the boot straps story" tells me the same thing, "worked hard, got ahead eventually",

everyone who keeps complaining about how impossible it is for them to get ahead, just keeps complaining about it, or refuseing to take actions outside their comfort zone, their story is an endless complaint


it really is a world where those who work harder/smarter get ahead, and those that dont, or do nothing but complain stay behind.

nkelsch wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:

The college system in our country is fethed up beyond belief.

Edit: For what it's worth, I still have plans to go into teaching, just probably not for the next 4 years or so until I get a few things paid off...

I agree it is fethed up. College professors are less qualified to teach than most public school teachers. But what else is fethed up is the lie they have sold to people going to college.

Also, Won't you lose your certification and be unable to teach if you don't obtain your masters within 5 years? So what good does working for 4 years 'elsewhere' do when by time you are ready to teach you are 1 year within being certified in your field?

Nope, not unless they feth with licensure. I have to be enrolled in a masters program within 5 years of starting teaching and complete it within 10. Some school districts help with that, some do not.

nkelsch wrote:
FYI: I rented rooms to college graduates to help them get along. Renting a room is still very common way to survive and while you may lose some of your personal freedoms living under someone else's roof, you can afford to live there. There is no expectation that a 'living wage' should guarantee someone a place to live by themselves or to support a family of 4. Those are luxuries. I know many people who had to get a roomate, take in a border or even be a boarder with their kids in tow. People do it every day.

I'd love to be able to get a room to rent, the three that I looked at were 300 to 450 dollars a month to rent and were utter gakholes... For those prices I could have gotten a roommate and gotten an actual apartment/house/condo.