Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[TemplarKormac]

I pay more than $2000 a month in rent, for a relatively small apartment. That's just how much it costs here.

That's terrible. Damn.

So, how can someone making 15 bucks an our eke out a living wage paying that much in rent? Wouldn't we be better served finding ways to lower the rent first before demanding a "living wage?" This guy comes to mind (being purely satirical here):

How do you suggest lowering the rent?

I was at that debate, by the way.

How would I know? I'm no economist, Doc. I'm of the mind of addressing the things that impact cost of living, things outside of "living wage." The microeconomic aspect.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I was at that debate, by the way.

LOL.

Really. If you paid for that, you got your money's worth.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I was at that debate, by the way.

LOL.

Really. If you paid for that, you got your money's worth.

I didn't pay for it - I don't think they sell tickets. But it certainly was a lot of fun.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A "living wage" is not a "fixed, definite" number, it's an abstract number, dependent on many additional variables

I know that, Doc.

Those variables make a "living wage" impossible to obtain. A "living wage" one day isn't "living wage" the next. The term "living wage" is too absolute a term. I figured since people were demanding $15 an hour, that this would be considered a "living wage" to someone such as Wry.

The term is usually defined to mean the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment.

Like I said. Too absolute. But my issue is with able bodied individuals on government assistance who don't earn this "living wage." Welfare checks cannot support a full family on its own. Either they supplement that with a part time job, or they live in government funded housing, and in some cases abject poverty until need drives them to find meaningful employment.

Minimum wage and a living wage are not the same thing. And Wry understands much better than you that a living wage in San Francisco is much much higher than $15/hour. My income if over six figures and I would be house poor if I purchased a home in The City (SF) with the same lot size and sq. footage as my home in the East Bay. My rental, with a 1/2 acre lot, if in The City would be worth well over 1 million dollars.

BTW, do your homework and learn the difference between AFDC and TANF.

1:

"My income is over six figures"

So why are you concerned about "living wage?" Seems as if you're living quite high off the hog. You're rich. Why should you get any say in this? Better yet, I'm poor, give me some of your money. You can PM me with your account details.

...

Well as you can see, and assuming your reaction, you wouldn't dream of doing something so... altruistic.


2:

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

My income is near the median for the area in which I live, we are comfortable and fortunate we bought homes in the 70's.

Consider the cost of real estate and rent around the country, and compare them to the current value of a home in San Francisco.

See: Real Estate - 524 Homes For Sale | Zillow

 

[SAYIT]

A "living wage" is not a "fixed, definite" number, it's an abstract number, dependent on many additional variables

I know that, Doc.

Those variables make a "living wage" impossible to obtain. A "living wage" one day isn't "living wage" the next. The term "living wage" is too absolute a term. I figured since people were demanding $15 an hour, that this would be considered a "living wage" to someone such as Wry.

The term is usually defined to mean the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment.

Like I said. Too absolute. But my issue is with able bodied individuals on government assistance who don't earn this "living wage." Welfare checks cannot support a full family on its own. Either they supplement that with a part time job, or they live in government funded housing, and in some cases abject poverty until need drives them to find meaningful employment.

Minimum wage and a living wage are not the same thing. And Wry understands much better than you that a living wage in San Francisco is much much higher than $15/hour. My income if over six figures and I would be house poor if I purchased a home in The City (SF) with the same lot size and sq. footage as my home in the East Bay. My rental, with a 1/2 acre lot, if in The City would be worth well over 1 million dollars.

BTW, do your homework and learn the difference between AFDC and TANF.

1:

"My income is over six figures"

So why are you concerned about "living wage?" Seems as if you're living quite high off the hog. You're rich. Why should you get any say in this? Better yet, I'm poor, give me some of your money. You can PM me with your account details.

...

Well as you can see, and assuming your reaction, you wouldn't dream of doing something so... altruistic.


2:

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

My income is near the median for the area in which I live, we are comfortable and fortunate we bought homes in the 70's.

Consider the cost of real estate and rent around the country, and compare them to the current value of a home in San Francisco.

See: Real Estate - 524 Homes For Sale | Zillow

Clue: Don't move to San Fran unless you can afford it.

 

[kaz]

What was that, Holmes? I said nothing about wages and salaries in relation to corporate profits at all, you pulled it out of your ass, dud

You mean the shrinking share of costs as RECORD CORP PROFITS KEEP GROWING, yet according to you, it's because of being lazy and a slob the Corps aren't hiring OR PAYING ENOUGH? lol

Nothing I said had anything to do with "corporate profits." What is wrong with you? How stupid are you? The world ... may never know, sucker

Oh right Bubba, you created the false premise about being lazy and a slob!

what false premise? You keep repeating the rhetoric without answering the question

Right Bubba, I've only mentioned it 3-4 times now, YOUR FALSE PREMISE THAT lazy/slobs are not getting employed based on their character flaws, NOT that the right wing supports the race to the bottom as Corps have record profits and pay the lowest tax burden in decades!

None of that was what I said. Seriously, you are a complete and utter fucking moron. You're only good for laughing at, Karl. no matter what is said, you respond with Marxist rhetoric. Your belt has only one tool in it

 

[kaz]

There are jobs in this country that are not designed to be careers, they are called entry level jobs designed primarily for young people with no work experience, little skill and little knowledge. You can't expect an employer to pay top dollar for such an employee.

You and I may be on the same page but just looking at it differently.

I do expect an employer to treat employees fairly, not abuse them or exploit them. Some of these entry level jobs turn into careers for some, the reasons for that are myriad. To judge them as does Kaz without knowing the facts is asinine.

Your strawm-e-n are asinine. Care to address what I actually said, speed racer?

You lump all entry level (your phrase) into the same set. I simply pointed out in doing so the one commonality is the job, not the circumstances which lead them to such a job.

Actually, "entry level" was lonestar's phrase, not mine. I made an observation based on my hiring experience. the ones who care make it fine, the ones who don't suck and eventually don't. What does "circumstances" have to do with that? Who doesn't grasp that you need to work to support yourself whatever your "circumstances" are? I mean except Democrats...

You asked a fair question, but quickly defaulted to being an asshole.

I too have hiring experience, and firing. I agree, those who care to do a good job, do well; those who don't, don't. But that is obvious. The question is why, and that is where the circumstances of the person comes into play.

Why is that the question regarding the discussion? It's on people to give a shit to support themselves, its not someone else's job to figure out why they don't want to

 

[kaz]

A "living wage" is not a "fixed, definite" number, it's an abstract number, dependent on many additional variables

I know that, Doc.

Those variables make a "living wage" impossible to obtain. A "living wage" one day isn't "living wage" the next. The term "living wage" is too absolute a term. I figured since people were demanding $15 an hour, that this would be considered a "living wage" to someone such as Wry.

The term is usually defined to mean the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment.

Like I said. Too absolute. But my issue is with able bodied individuals on government assistance who don't earn this "living wage." Welfare checks cannot support a full family on its own. Either they supplement that with a part time job, or they live in government funded housing, and in some cases abject poverty until need drives them to find meaningful employment.

Minimum wage and a living wage are not the same thing. And Wry understands much better than you that a living wage in San Francisco is much much higher than $15/hour. My income if over six figures and I would be house poor if I purchased a home in The City (SF) with the same lot size and sq. footage as my home in the East Bay. My rental, with a 1/2 acre lot, if in The City would be worth well over 1 million dollars.

BTW, do your homework and learn the difference between AFDC and TANF.

1:

"My income is over six figures"

So why are you concerned about "living wage?" Seems as if you're living quite high off the hog. You're rich. Why should you get any say in this? Better yet, I'm poor, give me some of your money. You can PM me with your account details.

...

Well as you can see, and assuming your reaction, you wouldn't dream of doing something so... altruistic.


2:

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

My income is near the median for the area in which I live, we are comfortable and fortunate we bought homes in the 70's.

Consider the cost of real estate and rent around the country, and compare them to the current value of a home in San Francisco.

See: Real Estate - 524 Homes For Sale | Zillow

Clue: Don't move to San Fran unless you can afford it.

True dat. I lived in the most expensive east coast counties, Montgomery, Fairfield, Fairfax and so on. I accepted a job in San Jose in the late nineties. They flew me out for a house hunting trip before I started. I was floored at the cost. I went home and asked for more money as a bonus, more money to move and more salary. They gave it to me. It's unbelievable the cost in the Bay area

 

[kaz]

There are jobs in this country that are not designed to be careers, they are called entry level jobs designed primarily for young people with no work experience, little skill and little knowledge. You can't expect an employer to pay top dollar for such an employee.

You and I may be on the same page but just looking at it differently.

I do expect an employer to treat employees fairly, not abuse them or exploit them. Some of these entry level jobs turn into careers for some, the reasons for that are myriad. To judge them as does Kaz without knowing the facts is asinine.

Your strawm-e-n are asinine. Care to address what I actually said, speed racer?

You lump all entry level (your phrase) into the same set. I simply pointed out in doing so the one commonality is the job, not the circumstances which lead them to such a job.

Actually, "entry level" was lonestar's phrase, not mine. I made an observation based on my hiring experience. the ones who care make it fine, the ones who don't suck and eventually don't. What does "circumstances" have to do with that? Who doesn't grasp that you need to work to support yourself whatever your "circumstances" are? I mean except Democrats...

You asked a fair question, but quickly defaulted to being an asshole.

I too have hiring experience, and firing. I agree, those who care to do a good job, do well; those who don't, don't. But that is obvious. The question is why, and that is where the circumstances of the person comes into play.

You know Wry, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment that when you whine that people insult you, you don't realize what a dick you are. So here I made the point that people who don't do well typically don't give a shit about their jobs. If you do care, you do well. First you came back with that's why people in my company don't care about me, which is a non-sequitur and just a point to be a dick. Then you said I "judge" them. Again, just to be a dick. I said they don't care about their jobs, as their employer, that isn't "judging" them, it's saying what they do at work.

Then again you whine about it. Then, YOU AGREED WITH MY ORIGINAL POINT.

Stop being a dick, or stop whining, until then, you are just being laughed at

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism.

Owners don't produce anything their employees do.

Stupid. They produce the jobs the employees perform and get paid for performing, and in terms of manufacturing they own the product produced.

And funny you want workers to vote with you when this is how you feel about workers?

If read my statement carefully (or get assistance), you will find that I said nothing about workers.

Fuck you.

Prance on over to the gay thread, fella. I don't subscribe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Consider the cost of real estate and rent around the country, and compare them to the current value of a home in San Francisco.

That is an unreliable comparison.

 

[Dad2three]

You mean the shrinking share of costs as RECORD CORP PROFITS KEEP GROWING, yet according to you, it's because of being lazy and a slob the Corps aren't hiring OR PAYING ENOUGH? lol

Nothing I said had anything to do with "corporate profits." What is wrong with you? How stupid are you? The world ... may never know, sucker

Oh right Bubba, you created the false premise about being lazy and a slob!

what false premise? You keep repeating the rhetoric without answering the question

Right Bubba, I've only mentioned it 3-4 times now, YOUR FALSE PREMISE THAT lazy/slobs are not getting employed based on their character flaws, NOT that the right wing supports the race to the bottom as Corps have record profits and pay the lowest tax burden in decades!

None of that was what I said. Seriously, you are a complete and utter fucking moron. You're only good for laughing at, Karl. no matter what is said, you respond with Marxist rhetoric. Your belt has only one tool in it

The right wing "marxist" klown burped something up again

 

[Dad2three]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Bubba, I forgot your "graph" beats the Office of the Actuary, an independent office within the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Yep, the SOUTHERN CONservatives States of AmeriKKKa is where those CONservative KKK came from. WE call them GOPers today

The graph is from the US Government Bureau of Economic Analysis, you stupid demoKKKrat.

What you(or KOS) did was cut off at 2013, to hide the massive spike.

Hey, you're just a lying Commie.

Study: Health Care Spending to Increase in 2015 After 5-Year Slump

Total expenditure driven by rising costs of specialty drugs and an improving economy, PwC report says.

Study: Health Care Spending to Increase in 2015 After 5-Year Slump

LOL, how disingenuous. That graph shows very high increases. It's formatted to hide that, but the spending growth is 9% to 7%

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mike...ealth-Ins-Prems-Personal-Income-2005-2014.jpg

Sorry Bubba, I forgot your "graph" beats the Office of the Actuary, an independent office within the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

LESS THAN 5% A YEAR FOR 5 OF 6 YEARS DUMBASS!

 

[bedowin62]

Sorry Bubba, I forgot your "graph" beats the Office of the Actuary, an independent office within the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Yep, the SOUTHERN CONservatives States of AmeriKKKa is where those CONservative KKK came from. WE call them GOPers today

The graph is from the US Government Bureau of Economic Analysis, you stupid demoKKKrat.

What you(or KOS) did was cut off at 2013, to hide the massive spike.

Hey, you're just a lying Commie.

Study: Health Care Spending to Increase in 2015 After 5-Year Slump

Total expenditure driven by rising costs of specialty drugs and an improving economy, PwC report says.

Study: Health Care Spending to Increase in 2015 After 5-Year Slump

LOL, how disingenuous. That graph shows very high increases. It's formatted to hide that, but the spending growth is 9% to 7%

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mike...ealth-Ins-Prems-Personal-Income-2005-2014.jpg

Sorry Bubba, I forgot your "graph" beats the Office of the Actuary, an independent office within the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

LESS THAN 5% A YEAR FOR 5 OF 6 YEARS DUMBASS!

you're tryin to brag about a report that admits spending never stopped GROWING after the introduction of obamacare, just at a slower pace; and is set to GO BACK TO RISING AT AN INCREASED PACE

seek mental help

 

[Wry Catcher]

I do expect an employer to treat employees fairly, not abuse them or exploit them. Some of these entry level jobs turn into careers for some, the reasons for that are myriad. To judge them as does Kaz without knowing the facts is asinine.

Your strawm-e-n are asinine. Care to address what I actually said, speed racer?

You lump all entry level (your phrase) into the same set. I simply pointed out in doing so the one commonality is the job, not the circumstances which lead them to such a job.

Actually, "entry level" was lonestar's phrase, not mine. I made an observation based on my hiring experience. the ones who care make it fine, the ones who don't suck and eventually don't. What does "circumstances" have to do with that? Who doesn't grasp that you need to work to support yourself whatever your "circumstances" are? I mean except Democrats...

You asked a fair question, but quickly defaulted to being an asshole.

I too have hiring experience, and firing. I agree, those who care to do a good job, do well; those who don't, don't. But that is obvious. The question is why, and that is where the circumstances of the person comes into play.

Why is that the question regarding the discussion? It's on people to give a shit to support themselves, its not someone else's job to figure out why they don't want to

Yet you judge them, as do other callous conservatives. Replacing staff is expensive, rehabilitating staff is cost effective - and part of that is training, compensations, hours, and understanding

Questions:

• Do they know what is expected and why;
• Were they properly trained or do they need more training;
• Do they have the necessary tools, in working order;
• Are they ill or in pain and fear losing their job if they complain;
• How's their life at home, are they concerned about a parent, spouse or child;
• Do they have a set and predictable schedule;
• Are they burdened by debt;

Find out why they don't give a shit, and if it is truly an attitude problem, use progressive (a word which must scare you) discipline.

 

[bedowin62]

i'm always amused by sanctimonious losers trying to bash others for a supposed lack of empathy; as they sit there and pretend things havent gotten worse for the poorest on the Progressive's watch

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

 

[bripat9643]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

Nothing I said had anything to do with "corporate profits." What is wrong with you? How stupid are you? The world ... may never know, sucker

Oh right Bubba, you created the false premise about being lazy and a slob!

what false premise? You keep repeating the rhetoric without answering the question

Right Bubba, I've only mentioned it 3-4 times now, YOUR FALSE PREMISE THAT lazy/slobs are not getting employed based on their character flaws, NOT that the right wing supports the race to the bottom as Corps have record profits and pay the lowest tax burden in decades!

None of that was what I said. Seriously, you are a complete and utter fucking moron. You're only good for laughing at, Karl. no matter what is said, you respond with Marxist rhetoric. Your belt has only one tool in it

The right wing "marxist" klown burped something up again

Who are you quoting, right wing nut job? Don't know what quotes mean? How's life in the clown car?