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.

Bit too tense in here folks. It's just a war game forum.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its fair for the work being asked of them.

How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?

Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?

So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.

Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.

If that is the case, suffer through it while putting yourself through school so you actually have marketable skills.

Or move to a different location.

Nobody is being forced to work at Walmart. There is always something you can do to better yourself. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort then I have no sympathy for you.

So they're not earning enough to survive without extra help from the government despite working full-time and your solution is for them to go back to school (which costs money as well as time, cutting back on their availability to work and hence earn what little they can) or move (which costs money).

You don't see a problem with that scenario?

 Palindrome wrote:

If only there were sufficient jobs available for people to have the realistic option to not work minimum wage jobs. This is where the 'bootstrap' ideology fails; its all well and good to tell people to improve themselves, often in a rather pompous manner, but there are a finite 'good' jobs available.

Problem is, at least in America, people are being indoctrinated with "go to college in order to be successful" as a result, there are TONS of jobs out there that are definitely middle class jobs being unfilled, simply because people are becoming more and more allergic to real work.... Don't want to stock shelves at Walmart for 30 years? go to a night school on scholarship to become a welder, or pipe fitter, etc.


It's not that there aren't enough "good" jobs available, it's that people don't want to get dirty, or do actual work.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its fair for the work being asked of them.

How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?

Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?

So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.

Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.

If that is the case, suffer through it while putting yourself through school so you actually have marketable skills.

Or move to a different location.

Nobody is being forced to work at Walmart. There is always something you can do to better yourself. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort then I have no sympathy for you.

So they're not earning enough to survive without extra help from the government despite working full-time and your solution is for them to go back to school (which costs money as well as time, cutting back on their availability to work and hence earn what little they can) or move (which costs money).

You don't see a problem with that scenario?

Whats the Cost of Living in the area around Wal-Mart? We dealing with all Wal-Marts or a specific area Wal-Mart here?

And if you have to rely on welfare to survive, that's hardly a livable wage.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Problem is, at least in America, people are being indoctrinated with "go to college in order to be successful" as a result, there are TONS of jobs out there that are definitely middle class jobs being unfilled, simply because people are becoming more and more allergic to real work.... Don't want to stock shelves at Walmart for 30 years? go to a night school on scholarship to become a welder, or pipe fitter, etc.
It's not that there aren't enough "good" jobs available, it's that people don't want to get dirty, or do actual work.

So you are saying that rather than retrain to be a tradesman they would rather stack shelves or scrub floors for a (barely adequate) living? That seems highly unlikely.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Problem is, at least in America, people are being indoctrinated with "go to college in order to be successful" as a result, there are TONS of jobs out there that are definitely middle class jobs being unfilled, simply because people are becoming more and more allergic to real work.... Don't want to stock shelves at Walmart for 30 years? go to a night school on scholarship to become a welder, or pipe fitter, etc.
It's not that there aren't enough "good" jobs available, it's that people don't want to get dirty, or do actual work.

So you are saying that rather than retrain to be a tradesman they would rather stack shelves or scrub floors for a (barely adequate) living? That seems highly unlikely.

For some people, why is that so hard to believe? Most people in America have a TV of some sort, and so they all see the "ITT Tech" or DeVry or other adult, alternative education commercials... they know it's there, yet they don't use the opportunity. There are definitely some who view going to school as taking a risk where they may lose out, and make even LESS money than their barely adequate wage currently.


Obviously, not everyone fits that bill, because I'd never paint with that broad of a brush

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And if you have to rely on welfare to survive, that's hardly a livable wage.

Look at the people you are talking about. Are they truly unable, or are they just unwilling to make cuts?

Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.

That situation is no different from a middle class worker trying to live beyond his means by buying a boat, swanky car, and taking expensive vacations all on credit.

Both are living beyond your means, and if you are in that situation you must improve your means.

Don't have kids unless you can support them. And don't blame your employer because he isn't paying enough for your financial situation, he's paying for the work you do. He not paying based on what you need.



I'm not going to go up to my boss and say ''hey, I'd really like to start a family/get a new car/put a down payment on a house. So could you give me a raise?"

That's pretty much want you guys are advocating.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And if you have to rely on welfare to survive, that's hardly a livable wage.

Look at the people you are talking about. Are they truly unable, or are they just unwilling to make cuts?

Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.

That situation is no different from a middle class worker trying to live beyond his means by buying a boat, swanky car, and taking expensive vacations all on credit.

Both are living beyond your means, and if you are in that situation you must improve your means.

Don't have kids unless you can support them. And don't blame your employer because he isn't paying enough for your financial situation, he's paying for the work you do. He not paying based on what you need.



I'm not going to go up to my boss and say ''hey, I'd really like to start a family/get a new car/put a down payment on a house. So could you give me a raise?"

That's pretty much want you guys are advocating.

But the Government wants to make everyone their friend

GT now I am force to fill this out
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/legalfiles/gates_letter_sept09/attach_1.pdf

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And if you have to rely on welfare to survive, that's hardly a livable wage.

Look at the people you are talking about. Are they truly unable, or are they just unwilling to make cuts?

Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.

That situation is no different from a middle class worker trying to live beyond his means by buying a boat, swanky car, and taking expensive vacations all on credit.

Both are living beyond your means, and if you are in that situation you must improve your means.

Don't have kids unless you can support them. And don't blame your employer because he isn't paying enough for your financial situation, he's paying for the work you do. He not paying based on what you need.



I'm not going to go up to my boss and say ''hey, I'd really like to start a family/get a new car/put a down payment on a house. So could you give me a raise?"

That's pretty much want you guys are advocating.

I'm not advocating anything, I was just pointing out something. Welfare fraud is really tiny, the people on welfare are generally not abusing the system.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.

So, in other words, the poor shouldn't be allowed to breed. Stay classy dakka.

Maybe dual income family with the other spouse making a bit more I can see it. Single parent though is S.O.L if she/he have no support from family. That does not mean make a life time career in Wal-Mart though and just do not depend on that one income from Wal-Mart.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.

So, in other words, the poor shouldn't be allowed to breed. Stay classy dakka.

No.

You can still be poor and support a family. You'll just need to make over minimum wage.

Let's drop the nationalism and play nice. Last warning for the thread.

Ryan

 Grey Templar wrote:

You can still be poor and support a family. You'll just need to make over minimum wage.

That still sounds very much like you are saying that people can't have a family if they are poor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
That does not mean make a life time career in Wal-Mart though and just do not depend on that one income from Wal-Mart.

So a single parent should be expected to work full time, look after their children on their own and undertake education?

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

You can still be poor and support a family. You'll just need to make over minimum wage.

That still sounds very much like you are saying that people can't have a family if they are poor.

On a single income, it's extremely irresponsible to attempt to support a family on minimum wage.. if that means we're trying to institute an eugenics program, then so be it... It doesn't sound like it to me. To me, it sounds like a reasonable comment.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

On a single income, it's extremely irresponsible to attempt to support a family on minimum wage.. /quote]

Its extremely irresponsible to have a 'minimum' wage that is not a living wage.

if people on minimum wage cannot support a family where do the next generation of minimum wage earners come from?

Mexico?

Don't you see a problem with having a minimum wage that cannot support a family? Who will do the basic work and keep the country running?

Unions are great. They're there to protect the rights of the workers. They're a necessary part of business.

Except, of course, when a union becomes something that exists just to sustain itself, workers be damned, to the point where union members cannot actually work.

Such as...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
On a single income, it's extremely irresponsible to attempt to support a family on minimum wage.. if that means we're trying to institute an eugenics program, then so be it... It doesn't sound like it to me. To me, it sounds like a reasonable comment.

Yeah, it is irresponsible to have a kid when you aren't earning enough to provide for it. But you know who wasn't irresponsible - the kid. The kid ends up with cheap, processed food, living in a tiny apartment in the bad end of town. The kid misses out on time with his parents because both parents have to work 40 hours a week.

It's all good and easy to say that people ought to be responsible for their own actions, but the brunt of too many irresponsible decisions are born by other people.

And that's if we're okay with this idea that's crept in to the right wing that people who work 40 hours a week shouldn't earn a reasonable wage. I mean, I remember when you guys used to limit your contempt to unemployed people...

 Manchu wrote:
Bit too tense in here folks. It's just a war game forum.

Good point. We should refocus the topic. Resolved: gamers should organize.
I'm thinking Teamsters. Only those Manly Men can handle our concentrated manliness.

"Come Leonidas, let us reason together."
"Go yourself."
- some gyro eating dude.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

 sebster wrote:

It's all good and easy to say that people ought to be responsible for their own actions, but the brunt of too many irresponsible decisions are born by other people.

And that's if we're okay with this idea that's crept in to the right wing that people who work 40 hours a week shouldn't earn a reasonable wage. I mean, I remember when you guys used to limit your contempt to unemployed people...

I agree that it's the kids who usually suffer for their parents' stupidity... And depending on the job, yeah a real, full time job shouldn't be minimum wage either.


Me personally, and I know I've said it on other threads, but "Minimum Wage" should be for those who are in school and still living with parents getting that valuable work experience, or those who are so new to the country they don't speak the local language... In BOTH cases, it should be temporary as each one moves along in life... the kid grows up and gets better work elsewhere. The immigrant better learns the local language, and moves on to better work as well.


Nearly every. single. person. that I've seen working a minimum wage job who is older than 24, and doesn't have the obvious markers of being an immigrant are doing that crap job because they fethed up their life. Whether it was through drugs, dropping out of school because they were too cool, or they broke some other laws... Doesn't matter. There are, quite simply, too many opportunities for people to move up and on in this country that people simply waste, for me to have much sympathy for the people who bitch and moan about how you can't raise a family on min. wage... That's literally not what minimum wage was designed for.

 44Ronin wrote:
As I said it's a modern reinvention of slavery.

Edit all you want. Ban me even. I'll still say it.

Then you're just trolling.


PLus you're ignorant. We don't like slavery. We like indentured servitude. Get it right peasant!

 Frazzled wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
As I said it's a modern reinvention of slavery.

Edit all you want. Ban me even. I'll still say it.

Then you're just trolling.


PLus you're ignorant. We don't like slavery. We like indentured servitude. Get it right peasant!

Fraz... the education system in Australia is lacking, since the Queen refuses to send any more money to those convicts

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
As I said it's a modern reinvention of slavery.

Edit all you want. Ban me even. I'll still say it.

Then you're just trolling.


PLus you're ignorant. We don't like slavery. We like indentured servitude. Get it right peasant!

Fraz... the education system in Australia is lacking, since the Queen refuses to send any more money to those convicts

I wouldn't say refuse, more like deathly afraid their ships will be attacked by Kraken, leaping Great White sharks, and killer drop bears launching themselves catapultlike from nearby forests.

After all thats what stopped the Japanese invasion fleet in February '42.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Nearly every. single. person. that I've seen working a minimum wage job who is older than 24, and doesn't have the obvious markers of being an immigrant are doing that crap job because they fethed up their life. Whether it was through drugs, dropping out of school because they were too cool, or they broke some other laws... Doesn't matter. There are, quite simply, too many opportunities for people to move up and on in this country that people simply waste, for me to have much sympathy for the people who bitch and moan about how you can't raise a family on min. wage... That's literally not what minimum wage was designed for.

This might be more to do with your circumstances and assumptions than the truth. I'm an engineer. In the course of my day, I interact almost entirely with college-educated professionals, with the exception of the few times a month I go out to eat, in which cases, there's a waitress involved. I take public transportation, but again, based on where I live and work, most of the people commuting into the city are also going to professional-level jobs.

It would be very easy for me to draw the same conclusion as you, based on my personal experiences.

My wife, however, is a nutritionist for WIC. And she tells me what's really going on. How people simply cannot get ahead by wanting to. How seemingly good jobs, like working at an ophthalmologist office, still make so little as to qualify for WIC supplements. When we're out in the neighborhood, she'll frequently know someone who is working, who is a client at her office. These aren't lazy unemployed layabouts, it's the economic environment that most people in this country live in.

People on dakka are largely the exception, not the rule. Poor people can't afford wargaming. I think nothing of dropping $500 on models in a month - that's half of minimum wage, before deductions are taken out.

The truth is that there are numerous factors that perpetuate the cycle of poverty in this country. We're the only industrialized country that invest more into schools doing well than schools doing poorly. Everywhere else realizes that all children are worthwhile and puts efforts into redeeming failing schools. In the US, conservative rhetoric implies that failing schools are the teacher's fault, and therefore, those teachers don't deserve raises. And the children of wealthy parents get to go to private charter schools, avoiding the issue altogether.

Our financial systems are designed to exploit the poor. If you're poor, you can't qualify for a standard loan. You might get a credit card, something I take for granted, but probably not. Bank overdraft fees compound small errors into financial catastrophes, and if they avoid the bank, they pay exorbitant fees for simple things like cashing their paychecks.

(This is a humorous take on a non-humorous problem: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/.)

When hedge fund managers and investors like Warren Buffet are calling for higher minimum wages, this should be indicative that there are positive economic benefits to not keeping people in poverty.

You say people make mistakes, "bad life choices". But take the example of the child born to a couple who can't afford it. Let's see, we have conservative 'moral' policies dictating that sex ed be limited to abstinence only, in spite of all evidence showing that this does not work. We have conservative policies that restrict access to abortion for those who would seek to avoid the 'bad decision'. And, you can see this in effect because of the differences in children born out-of-wedlock in red states versus blue states.

The US used to have a middle-class that was the envy of the world. Now, we're not doing so well. (http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-wealth/index.html?hpt=hp_t3). A big part of that is the erosion of unions over the years. Most labor gains have started as the result of organized union activity, and have spread to the rest of the population as a result. When unions are weak, all labor suffers.

 44Ronin wrote:
As I said it's a modern reinvention of slavery.

Edit all you want. Ban me even. I'll still say it.

I wouldn't say "slavery", as Walmart has yet to be able to sell an employee to BestBuy.

I would say "serfdom", however. Frankly, the whole system at the minimum wage level has moved away from capitalism and moved to economic feudalism.

Think about it: a Walmart worker makes a pittance at Walmart, and the only place he can afford to shop is the Walmart he works at (actually, he can't afford to shop there, either, but its the cheapest place in town so that's where his money goes) which means the money he makes goes right back into his employer's pocket. So the company gets the labor and the reward for that labor (and the government support, which doesn't fit smoothly into my feudalism comparison, but feth it, I'm committed at this point). If the peasant is lucky he can keep a few pennies for himself at the end of the day, but otherwise ALL of the money flows upward to the employer. Sounds pretty feudalistic to me.

The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

 Frazzled wrote:
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.

That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.