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.

 cincydooley wrote:

Yes. There's certainly none of that everyone can succeed feel goody nonsense going on in the United States.

There's really not. Pessimism and doubt about the future is what I hear most often. The fact that you deride it as such goes forward to prove that. And it's like you say, it's nonsense. You're probably 100% correct. It's like a placebo though. You convince someone they can improve themselves, and they will. But if you can convince them they're trapped cage they can't escape from, they'll lay down like a dog and live in it even when they can't see the bars.

You're young and working a minimum wage job? Get a roommate. Boom. Your living expenses are cut in half.

Heh, I'm not young and I'm that meritocracy success story you base your argument on, and I STILL have a roommate.

In spite of that, I look at my life and see a few pivotal points where I was in the right place at the right time, or getting to know someone who just hit the right place at the right time. It made me realize that, no matter what I know, how good I am at what I do or how hard I try, were it not for those few times there would definitely be many less degrees of success separating me from the haggard dirty bum in line at the church soup kitchen I drive past every day on my way home from work.

xruslanx wrote:
. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.

100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.

There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.

There are the way things should be, and the way things are.

 surixurient wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.

100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.

Sure. That and clothes. And heating. That takes up a huge chunk of lower income earners' money even today. I have friends who struggle to provide for kids on minimum wage, if it weren't for government handouts they simply couldn't afford to.

 Frazzled wrote:
There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.

There are the way things should be, and the way things are.

Things are only the way they are because people got too lazy to work on the shoulds.

In that sense, the people who are happy with the status quo must be the lazy and stupid ones, and not always the people on the bottom of society.

xruslanx wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.

100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.

Sure. That and clothes. And heating. That takes up a huge chunk of lower income earners' money even today. I have friends who struggle to provide for kids on minimum wage, if it weren't for government handouts they simply couldn't afford to.

By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.

 Frazzled wrote:
There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.

There are the way things should be, and the way things are.

That does kind of read like an apology for the status quo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 surixurient wrote:
By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.

The basis of your argument appears to be: "because things were worse at other times and places, the things that are seen now by some as needing to change are not worth talking about, let alone changing."

Is that incorrect?

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.

There are the way things should be, and the way things are.

That does kind of read like an apology for the status quo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 surixurient wrote:
By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.

The basis of your argument appears to be: "because things were worse at other times and places, the things that are seen now by some as needing to change are not worth talking about, let alone changing."

Is that incorrect?

No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

And no one is offering luxuries.

I'm really not sure where raising the minimum wage for low level workers= luxuries.

What is this the Gilded Age?

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

When someone without a smart phone, cable tv, weekly manicure, 100 dollar sneakers, weekly bag of weed, who doesnt smoke or drink cannot afford housing, food, and transportation, and doesn't have some legitimate reason for not being capable of working, then we can talk.


housing 6000 per year, transportation 2000-3000, food 2000-3000. If you can not earn that much in a year in an advanced economy, than there is something wrong with you, not with the economy.

 surixurient wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

When someone without a smart phone, cable tv, weekly manicure, 100 dollar sneakers, weekly bag of weed, who doesnt smoke or drink cannot afford housing, food, and transportation, and doesn't have some legitimate reason for not being capable of working, then we can talk.

So now the truth behind all the fancy rhetoric comes out. Everyone who is worse off than you is a deadbeat loser.

That seems to be the heart of these discussions. There is a lot of rhetoric and psuedo-logic; but it always boils down to "I've got mine, so Feth you. I worked for my money and deserve it. You obviously are inferior and don't deserve it."

I would like to say that I want everyone to be able to afford 2 cars and a life of luxury. The way to make that happen is to provide the opportunities for them to achieve those goals. Getting out of their way would be the most important thing. And after that would be fostering a pro business environment, striking the right balance with environmental and labor issues to allow mines and factories to open in this country instead of over seas.

 Easy E wrote:


So now the truth behind all the fancy rhetoric comes out. Everyone who is worse off than you is a deadbeat loser.

That seems to be the heart of these discussions. There is a lot of rhetoric and psuedo-logic; but it always boils down to "I've got mine, so Feth you. I worked for my money and deserve it. You obviously are inferior and don't deserve it."

Except that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that all that bs he listed is a Luxury item, is 100% non-essential, and shouldn't even be considered in the equation when calculating a "living wage."

No one "deserves" anything. Notice when the founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, they wrote "pursuit of happiness". They didn't write the "guarantee of happiness".

When I got laid off the first thing we cut was our cable. It wasn't a hard choice to make. We also stopped going out to eat. The biggest problem I have with any discussion about a living wage is too many people include luxuries and non essentials into their calculations. But then again, I also think that food stamps and WIC vouchers should only include non-name brands and should include food pyramid basics like bread, milk, eggs, fruits and veggies, as protein.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.

Certain definitions of luxury would include shoes.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.

Certain definitions of luxury would include shoes.

Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.

Certain definitions of luxury would include shoes.

I can go to Wal mart or pay less and get a new pair for less than $15. They're not Nikes, but again, name brands are luxuries.

 surixurient wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

When someone without a smart phone, cable tv, weekly manicure, 100 dollar sneakers, weekly bag of weed, who doesnt smoke or drink cannot afford housing, food, and transportation, and doesn't have some legitimate reason for not being capable of working, then we can talk.

Part of the problem is that I don't really interact with a lot of "poor" people, so maybe my perception is skewed, but the majority of the people I know or see who are "poor" don't appear to have any of that. Where are you seeing these people, and how do you know they're poor?

housing 6000 per year, transportation 2000-3000, food 2000-3000. If you can not earn that much in a year in an advanced economy, than there is something wrong with you, not with the economy.

And now, the fact that what makes sense for one area with its own cost of living stops making sense for another one with its own cost of living. I think you are lowballing transportation, but I'm assuming you have a car. I'm not hip on what bus rates are like, but I'd imagine they would fall into that category. In St. Louis, $500/month split between rent and utilities will get you either someplace borderline dangerous to live, or some place far enough in the middle of nowhere that you need a car.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.

How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and batroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?

 surixurient wrote:

Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?

So then are we classifying something as a luxury based upon it being cheap, how many people have them, or whether it was a luxury 100 years ago?

Also, Fox News thinks that your fridge is a luxury.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and bathroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?

How about renting a room in a home? The facilities are shared. Would that be unreasonably poor conditions?

 surixurient wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and bathroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?

How about renting a room in a home? The facilities are shared. Would that be unreasonably poor conditions?

Depends upon the number of people crammed into said room, I suppose.

At the far end of the spectrum, how is anything more than the food to survive and enough possessions to legally walk in public NOT a luxury? I mean, the rented room could be a luxury because the church offers a perfectly good shelter, right?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.

So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?

Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.

How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and batroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?

For two years I had a bedroom, and shared a bathroom. That was it. There was no kitchen. No living room. Nothing else. One bedroom for myself, and a shared bathroom. I survived pretty well.

And no, that does not count the time I've been deployed. I could mention living in a tent in -30 degree temps..., having to walk a quarter mile outside to get to a bathroom.

 daedalus wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?

So then are we classifying something as a luxury based upon it being cheap, how many people have them, or whether it was a luxury 100 years ago?

Also, Fox News thinks that your fridge is a luxury.

I'm not saying anything about whether its a luxury, i'm just saying its a non-issue.

Fridges are about 200-300 on craigslist. For something that will last you years, another non-issue.
The real costs are the ones that keep costing: housing, transportation, food, taxes, hobbies, entertainment, addictions, etc.

 surixurient wrote:


Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?

Ever been to a job interview in clothes from the goodwill?

 daedalus wrote:

Part of the problem is that I don't really interact with a lot of "poor" people, so maybe my perception is skewed, but the majority of the people I know or see who are "poor" don't appear to have any of that. Where are you seeing these people, and how do you know they're poor?

Do you actually want the truth? I do a lot of volunteering in inner city schools and work weekly with kids that live in section housing. I'd say 50-60% of the parents I see pick their kids up after school have smart phones and smoke. I'd say 75% have obvious brand names on (I see a lot of polo and lacoste-- gak that I choose not to afford) and about 50-60% of the women have their nails and hair done what looks to be professionally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackskullandy wrote:

 surixurient wrote:


Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?

Ever been to a job interview in clothes from the goodwill?

In the United States, in most major cities, there are "dressed for success" consignment and goodwill type shops that only have professional looking clothing. There's one on the bottom floor of the building I work at.

 Blackskullandy wrote:

 surixurient wrote:


Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?

Ever been to a job interview in clothes from the goodwill?

My wife enjoys shopping at goodwill. On the days she drags me in there, I have learned that it would be very easy to put together several outfits that were respectable looking, for a very fair price.

 daedalus wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and bathroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?

How about renting a room in a home? The facilities are shared. Would that be unreasonably poor conditions?

Depends upon the number of people crammed into said room, I suppose.

At the far end of the spectrum, how is anything more than the food to survive and enough possessions to legally walk in public NOT a luxury? I mean, the rented room could be a luxury because the church offers a perfectly good shelter, right?

Yes, luxury is relative. It says a lot about one's character where you would draw the line.

 daedalus wrote:


Depends upon the number of people crammed into said room, I suppose.
?

This argument would hold a lot more water if college students and Hispanic immigrants didn't routinely do this In order to maximize the money they'd like to have extra--college students for beer and pizza, immigrants to send to their families.