Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[LoneLaugher]

Of course if you had actually worked in H.R., you would know that.

A VP makes $100K and her assistant makes $50K annually. The VP makes 100% more than the assistant, but everyone agrees that's fair based on job duties and skill sets.

Both employees work their asses off all year and the VP fully agrees she could not have done her job as well without her assistant. Raises come around. The VP gets 10% and the assistant gets a cost of living 3%.

Next year, same thing. Year after that, same thing. Now, the VP is making $133K and the assistant is making $54.6K. The VP is now making 144% of what the assistant is making.

Is that what the assistant agreed to? Is the company being fair to that employee? Is this a good way to retain a hard working employee? To build company morale?

But anyway, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure I never worked in HR.

Well thank you for now agreeing that you didn't work in HR after you said you did. But it is hardly agreeing with me when you say the administrative assistant deserves the same compensation as the producers in the company.

The assistant agreed to work for a given wage. The VP agreed to work for a given wage. The assistant most likely is doing necessary work or he or she wouldn't have been hired, but other than doing the necessary job is most likely not doing anything that increases the productivity or efficiency or profits of the business. The VP however is in charge of productivity, efficiency, and profits of the business and if he does his job well he deserves to be rewarded for that extra productivity, efficiency, and profits. If he fails to produce, he is likely out of a job.

THAT is why the VP merits a bigger raise than the administrative assistant. If the administrative assistant is dissatisfied with his/her wage, s/he should change jobs or do whatever is necessary to move from a dead end administrative job to production. Greater responsibility, greater stress, greater pressures, and much less job security will be involved but he or she will also be in a position to qualify for the big money if he/she produces.

Work is only worth as much as its value to the employer who pays the wages.

Stupid companies pay the VP or other executives whether or not they produce. That will eventually get them into trouble, but it's their money and they are free to do with it whatever they wish however stupid that might be.

That is bull.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Okay guys, ya'll tried to tell me I was engaging in an exercise of futility but I pushed on. I honestly thought Don'tBeStupid was capable of grasping the concept we've all been trying to teach him. Apparently he isn't. But oh well.

I'm gonna go make chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes, creamed gravy, and a nice salad and enjoy the opening game of the World Series. Later all.

Sounds delicious!

When you get back you can explain to all of us how a flat tax is fair but a flat raise isn't.

Enjoy!

 

[DiamondDave]

Says the person who thinks a hard-working assistant contributes nothing to a company.

Does the hard working assistant who types and organizes 20% faster bring more to the company than the account executive she works for that brings 20% more in business because of a new deal that provides that added profit/revenue?? Can more people type than can draw in millions of additional income??

You are a fucking buffoon... a waste of oxygen...

At least I'm not an ass hole like you.

Your only criteria for annual raises is that the person involved directly increased revenue for the company. That automatically rules out millions upon millions of jobs that when done well help the company in other ways.

You're basically saying, that if you assist someone, you should never get a raise, ever.

Nice try, asshole.. but what I am saying is that those who directly drive increased revenue will more likely, and more deservedly, gain more benefit.. because the goal of business is profit, not harder work.. I give raises to hard workers.. but I give bigger raised to those that save or create more value and profit to the company.. and that is how it should be

 

[Bern80]

Think about what you just wrote. You are saying that a VP should be paid higher than his assistant, and that NO MATTER WHAT, he should get a higher percentage raise every year, because of his skill set and not because of his work. And you think this is fair.

You do what it takes to retain the value your employees provide. More people have the skill set it takes to be an administrative assistant than have the skill set to manage business operations with multiple groups of people successfully. That takes leadership and that is a skill that not many people have. It is a skill that is in higher demand than administrative assistant because of it's rarity therefore it should only stand to reason that it going to cost more to obtain and keep. No they shouldn't make have a pay raise that is greater than there assistant no matter what. They should get a bigger pay raise if that's what it take to keep a person whom is more beneficial to the company than not.

Also, think about it again, if you raise the VP wages every year by a higher percentage than his assistant, the inequality in their incomes will grow every year. You know, kind of like I said it would, showed it did and say it will continue to do.

And you think this is all fine?

Extreme income inequality wouldn't be good, but it's hard to worry about it continuing to occur since it's an outcome that isn't beneficial to anyone, rich or poor. If you want to stop it you need to start barking up the right tree. Government is the entity that is propping up businesses that would otherwise fail without their help. They fail because they are managed poorly or because they have overly greedy CEO's looking for a quick score. But because the have the money and it's legal they can buy politicians. That is called crony capitalism and not how a real free market is supposed to work. Companies like Goldman Sachs and GM should have been allowed to fail and I bet that that relationship between government and corporations is a contributing factor to why that graph looks the way it does.

 

[Bern80]

You sir, are a ignorant as to the workings of business

Says the person who thinks a hard-working assistant contributes nothing to a company.

Unfortunately for you he's right. Hard work is not always valuable work.

 

[DontBeStupid]

No they [VPs] shouldn't make have a pay raise that is greater than there assistant no matter what.

Excellent. Thank you. We agree.

Extreme income inequality wouldn't be good, but it's hard to worry about it continuing to occur since it's an outcome that isn't beneficial to anyone, rich or poor.

Again. We agree. However, it's been ongoing for decades, so I have a hard time thinking it will stop any time soon.

If you want to stop it you need to start barking up the right tree. Government is the entity that is propping up businesses that would otherwise fail without their help. They fail because they are managed poorly or because they have overly greedy CEO's looking for a quick score. But because the have the money and it's legal they can buy politicians. That is called crony capitalism and not how a real free market is supposed to work. Companies like Goldman Sachs and GM should have been allowed to fail and I bet that that relationship between government and corporations is a contributing factor to why that graph looks the way it does.

Again, we agree. I would only add, that if government has been part of the problem the past decades, then they could certainly be part of the solution for the upcoming decades. Provided they had the will to do it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Life isn't "fair".

So life is not fair, but the wages are always fair, without a doubt, unquestionably, as sure as the sky is blue? Oh, and Jesus rose again, right?



Wait, you said pretty much anyone could do it. Now you're saying only some people will be good at it. Which is it? I think you're a bit lost in this tangled mess of a hole you're trying to dig yourself out of.



Okay, so you're saying that simply choosing to go to college makes it happen? That, of course, could be true if your theory of education being free in this country were true. But college costs money. What is a person to do if they don't have the money for college? No amount of "choice" will change the fact that they cannot afford the expense. Maybe you just need to learn to count your blessings and be a little more humble, instead of thinking that you are such hot shit that you can simply will anything into reality you want. You're not God, you know.



Nobody is bitching about people who have more money. We're discussing here how our society has taken turns and is making choices that to not encourage the greater good or general prosperity, or a structurally sound society or economy.



Oh, bummer. I guess the self righteousness simply boiled over before I could get you to turn down the heat. What you're basically saying is that your choices (neglecting your good fortune to have had the means to pursue them in the first place) make you worth a livable income for your work. But other people are not worth a livable income. That you are more deserving of fancy house decorations than they are of providing the bare necessities for their families. That the people who hired you are more deserving of a yacht than the poor are deserving of full meals. I have to say, it's pretty disgusting that you would engage in such class warfare like that.



Actually, no, it's not possible for anyone to have a decent life. Your theories here NECESSITATE that a certain section of our society remain impoverished, as if they have some kind of moral obligation to remain so, so that you can remain well above such conditions, and so that the mega wealthy can remain mega wealthy. Your approach can only be sustained by demanding people simply accept their poverty, as if it were a religious or patriotic duty. That is sick.



Yeah, that's why the vast majority of non-college-educated people make significantly less money than the college educated.



Really? How? Please enlighten the rest of the world.



I'm sorry, did I miss the global exodus where everyone moved to OK? Also, this contradicts what you said a moment ago. You said that the students could get a free education based on choices. You didn't say that they had to DEPEND on someone else's choices.



1) Either provide evidence that this is what happens, otherwise do not repeat the claim again.

2) You just said that the student must depend on their parent's choice to get signed up for the program. Now you're claiming that it's the student's choice. You must choose one or the other, but you cannot have both. Make a choice.

3) You have yet to explain how this singular state program does anything for the rest of the country where we supposedly have free education.



I'll agree to a certain extent. It's kinda like poker. It's not always fair. Sometimes it rewards the person who did wrong and punishes the person who did right. It's all about choices. But in poker, just like in life, you have to have the money first before the choice is even an available option.



You're right. Either you can or you can't. It's not true that everyone can, because not everyone has the means to do it. Many people may choose to do it but not have the funding. You continue to choose to ignore that fact.



This is a contradiction. If they don't owe me anything, they aren't going to pay me anything commiserate with my skills, experience, or ability. They are going to pay me as little as they can get away with regardless of my skill, experience, or ability so that they can retain as large a portion of the pie for themselves as they possibly can. They will, in fact, pay me so low that I cannot afford to adequately feed and clothe myself. They will, in fact, turn around and object to my appearance at work, and demand that I adequately feed and clothe myself, all while continuing to refuse to pay me a living wage. They will be the Jim Taggert who demands production without allowing for the means to produce.

The more you have, the more you'll make.

If you were to insert "money" after each "more" I'll agree with you. But that's about it.

No...Life isn't fair. Deal with it. If a person is unskilled they will be paid accordingly and appropriately.
Anyone may be creative and start a business. The question is are they capable?
This nation is one of the few on the planet where everyone has the opportunity to be the best they can and to reach their full potential.
"What happens if"....This is the line you libs use as the basis for every social program in existence today. You people assume that all people are capable of going down the tubes. You look upon people as helpless. So you petition government to further your notion of compassion then petition government to dispense your compassion the way you see fit. The Left's compassion invariably begins with other people's money.
Non one owed anything. Having access to higher education is not a right. However, there are literally billions of dollars in loans and grants( mostly to the poor and lower class earners) for college. The problem is most of the whiners are too lazy to get off their ass and go get it.
No YOU ARE discussing that. When I see terms like "common or greater good" I cringe.
That is Marxism.. "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"...Collectivism. That taking of assets and wealth by government to provide for the masses.
Yiu people have convinced yourselves ,with the help of the main stream media and the Obama regime that if one person has more wealth then by definition another MUST have less. That is of course idiotic. But you people in your seething misery have class envy on your minds 24/7. It is the pinnacle of greed to want the results of the work of others handed to you via threat of government sanctions.
You people use terms such as "the good fortune" so inaccurately. You comprehend skill, hard work and ambition turned into a comfortable life as "winning the lottery of life". That is crap. That idea is built straight out of the jealousy manual. You Lefties believe it just isn't fair that some people get to live in larger homes than others or whatever. At the end of the day though, your message is not "let's lift those at the bottom". It is let's punish those at the top because we believe they have caused there to be a bottom". Don't deny it because that is how your lib/progressive minds work. We hear it/read it all the time from the Left.
"Actually, no, it's not possible for anyone to have a decent life. Your theories here NECESSITATE that a certain section of our society remain impoverished, as if they have some kind of moral obligation to remain so, so that you can remain well above such conditions, and so that the mega wealthy can remain mega wealthy. Your approach can only be sustained by demanding people simply accept their poverty, as if it were a religious or patriotic duty. That is sick."
That is utter bullshit. The truth is anyone can have a decent life in this country. Some just have to work at it in different ways or harder than others. The bottom line is the more successful do not owe the less successful anything just because they are less successful.
That is a concept you people on the left cannot grasp.
As for the rest of your quote, it is based on a false premise. The existence of the zero sum game

Meh, I spent an hour replying to your post when I lost power and lost my work. I haven't the energy to start over again, so I'll say the two most important things.

First: Your entire argument is rife with straw men. You're arguing against things that I never said.

Second (and most important): I am not a "lefty," a Democrat, a liberal, or any similar thing. I am an independent and a centrist. And in fact, I fall right of center on more things that I do left of center. I support strong immigration laws and enforcement, establishing English as the national language, I reject amnesty for current illegals, I support individual gun ownership rights, I oppose Obama's health care bill, I support more governance at the state level than the federal level, I am very much hoping for a quality candidate to be presented to unseat Obama from office (I'm circling Romney and Cain), I am against government intrusion into people's personal lives, and I am against affirmative action measures. If you somehow think that all of this puts me on the left simply because I don't agree with you on a singular issue (one that you've failed to address in the first place) then do not bother ever directing a comment at me again because that would have to mean that you're such a radical extremist that you're on par with Osama bin Laden. If you insist on calling me a liberal, lefty, whatever again, you'll join my ignore list.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yes we are talking about high school kids and everyone else who does not require an income to live on.

No, maybe YOU are talking about those people. But this thread is about what constitutes a living wage, and we are talking about the people who DO require an income on which to live.

If we aren't talking about those people that what you are suggesting is that despite having the same job the teen he works at mcdonalds should be paid market value for their job but the adult should be paid whatever a living wage would be for them.

I find this interesting. With so many people in this country out of work, and with so many companies eliminating jobs, McDonald's has been one company that has created alot of jobs over the past few years. I guess I'll use your example of McDonalds. Let's say a teen still in school works at McDonalds. But then they graduate from school. What now? Go to college? And if they don't have the money, what then? How is one supposed to earn a true living wage, if they are, by your suggestions, not deserving of one?

The only person's mental capacity I'm questioning is yours.

Well then you should provide something of intellectual value, because so far you haven't.

America is about the ONLY country where a person actually does have the opportunity to change their starting position is life.

Why are wing-nut conservatives so in love with romantic notions? Come back down to Earth. Just a second ago you essentially said that some people aren't even deserving of a living wage. How are they supposed to have the opportunity to change their position in life? Go to college? How are they supposed to have the money for that if they scarcely have the money to take care of themselves?

But doing so is on you. The opportunities are out there. It's a question of what you're willing to sacrafice now to improve you're life later.

Where are they? And what is one supposed to "sacrifice" if they don't have anything to begin with?

Wanna have a starting position that pays upper five figures. I know exactly where to find one. You're just going to have to move to North Dakota to get it.

Okay, so everyone who works for low wages now should move to North Dakota. That will solve everything, right? And, of course, moving there will involve no expense whatsoever, right? Anyone who is barely scraping by now will be able to move to North Dakota despite having no money for it. Is that what you're saying?

BTW, what exactly is this "starting position" that pays upper 5 figures?

The biggest predictor of where you're going to end up in life is the choices YOU make.

Please, can we skip the romantic notions and talk about actionable options?

You can't be shocked that a single mother of two is having a hard time getting by given the choices it took to become a single mother of two.

Uh, you mean to tell me that it is a woman's fault if her husband dies?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Okay guys, ya'll tried to tell me I was engaging in an exercise of futility but I pushed on. I honestly thought Don'tBeStupid was capable of grasping the concept we've all been trying to teach him. Apparently he isn't. But oh well.

I'm gonna go make chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes, creamed gravy, and a nice salad and enjoy the opening game of the World Series. Later all.

You've inspired me! We're going to have a couple t-bones and potatoes...

 

[Inthemiddle]

I had to work my way up, without a college degree, by making proper choices, learning, gaining experience, not buying everything I wanted, skipping meals, etc.

Here it is, folks. The conservative wing-nuts believe that the poor have an obligation to be poor and hungry.

 

[DiamondDave]

So life is not fair, but the wages are always fair, without a doubt, unquestionably, as sure as the sky is blue? Oh, and Jesus rose again, right?



Wait, you said pretty much anyone could do it. Now you're saying only some people will be good at it. Which is it? I think you're a bit lost in this tangled mess of a hole you're trying to dig yourself out of.



Okay, so you're saying that simply choosing to go to college makes it happen? That, of course, could be true if your theory of education being free in this country were true. But college costs money. What is a person to do if they don't have the money for college? No amount of "choice" will change the fact that they cannot afford the expense. Maybe you just need to learn to count your blessings and be a little more humble, instead of thinking that you are such hot shit that you can simply will anything into reality you want. You're not God, you know.



Nobody is bitching about people who have more money. We're discussing here how our society has taken turns and is making choices that to not encourage the greater good or general prosperity, or a structurally sound society or economy.



Oh, bummer. I guess the self righteousness simply boiled over before I could get you to turn down the heat. What you're basically saying is that your choices (neglecting your good fortune to have had the means to pursue them in the first place) make you worth a livable income for your work. But other people are not worth a livable income. That you are more deserving of fancy house decorations than they are of providing the bare necessities for their families. That the people who hired you are more deserving of a yacht than the poor are deserving of full meals. I have to say, it's pretty disgusting that you would engage in such class warfare like that.



Actually, no, it's not possible for anyone to have a decent life. Your theories here NECESSITATE that a certain section of our society remain impoverished, as if they have some kind of moral obligation to remain so, so that you can remain well above such conditions, and so that the mega wealthy can remain mega wealthy. Your approach can only be sustained by demanding people simply accept their poverty, as if it were a religious or patriotic duty. That is sick.



Yeah, that's why the vast majority of non-college-educated people make significantly less money than the college educated.



Really? How? Please enlighten the rest of the world.



I'm sorry, did I miss the global exodus where everyone moved to OK? Also, this contradicts what you said a moment ago. You said that the students could get a free education based on choices. You didn't say that they had to DEPEND on someone else's choices.



1) Either provide evidence that this is what happens, otherwise do not repeat the claim again.

2) You just said that the student must depend on their parent's choice to get signed up for the program. Now you're claiming that it's the student's choice. You must choose one or the other, but you cannot have both. Make a choice.

3) You have yet to explain how this singular state program does anything for the rest of the country where we supposedly have free education.



I'll agree to a certain extent. It's kinda like poker. It's not always fair. Sometimes it rewards the person who did wrong and punishes the person who did right. It's all about choices. But in poker, just like in life, you have to have the money first before the choice is even an available option.



You're right. Either you can or you can't. It's not true that everyone can, because not everyone has the means to do it. Many people may choose to do it but not have the funding. You continue to choose to ignore that fact.



This is a contradiction. If they don't owe me anything, they aren't going to pay me anything commiserate with my skills, experience, or ability. They are going to pay me as little as they can get away with regardless of my skill, experience, or ability so that they can retain as large a portion of the pie for themselves as they possibly can. They will, in fact, pay me so low that I cannot afford to adequately feed and clothe myself. They will, in fact, turn around and object to my appearance at work, and demand that I adequately feed and clothe myself, all while continuing to refuse to pay me a living wage. They will be the Jim Taggert who demands production without allowing for the means to produce.



If you were to insert "money" after each "more" I'll agree with you. But that's about it.

No...Life isn't fair. Deal with it. If a person is unskilled they will be paid accordingly and appropriately.
Anyone may be creative and start a business. The question is are they capable?
This nation is one of the few on the planet where everyone has the opportunity to be the best they can and to reach their full potential.
"What happens if"....This is the line you libs use as the basis for every social program in existence today. You people assume that all people are capable of going down the tubes. You look upon people as helpless. So you petition government to further your notion of compassion then petition government to dispense your compassion the way you see fit. The Left's compassion invariably begins with other people's money.
Non one owed anything. Having access to higher education is not a right. However, there are literally billions of dollars in loans and grants( mostly to the poor and lower class earners) for college. The problem is most of the whiners are too lazy to get off their ass and go get it.
No YOU ARE discussing that. When I see terms like "common or greater good" I cringe.
That is Marxism.. "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"...Collectivism. That taking of assets and wealth by government to provide for the masses.
Yiu people have convinced yourselves ,with the help of the main stream media and the Obama regime that if one person has more wealth then by definition another MUST have less. That is of course idiotic. But you people in your seething misery have class envy on your minds 24/7. It is the pinnacle of greed to want the results of the work of others handed to you via threat of government sanctions.
You people use terms such as "the good fortune" so inaccurately. You comprehend skill, hard work and ambition turned into a comfortable life as "winning the lottery of life". That is crap. That idea is built straight out of the jealousy manual. You Lefties believe it just isn't fair that some people get to live in larger homes than others or whatever. At the end of the day though, your message is not "let's lift those at the bottom". It is let's punish those at the top because we believe they have caused there to be a bottom". Don't deny it because that is how your lib/progressive minds work. We hear it/read it all the time from the Left.
"Actually, no, it's not possible for anyone to have a decent life. Your theories here NECESSITATE that a certain section of our society remain impoverished, as if they have some kind of moral obligation to remain so, so that you can remain well above such conditions, and so that the mega wealthy can remain mega wealthy. Your approach can only be sustained by demanding people simply accept their poverty, as if it were a religious or patriotic duty. That is sick."
That is utter bullshit. The truth is anyone can have a decent life in this country. Some just have to work at it in different ways or harder than others. The bottom line is the more successful do not owe the less successful anything just because they are less successful.
That is a concept you people on the left cannot grasp.
As for the rest of your quote, it is based on a false premise. The existence of the zero sum game

Meh, I spent an hour replying to your post when I lost power and lost my work. I haven't the energy to start over again, so I'll say the two most important things.

First: Your entire argument is rife with straw men. You're arguing against things that I never said.

Second (and most important): I am not a "lefty," a Democrat, a liberal, or any similar thing. I am an independent and a centrist. And in fact, I fall right of center on more things that I do left of center. I support strong immigration laws and enforcement, establishing English as the national language, I reject amnesty for current illegals, I support individual gun ownership rights, I oppose Obama's health care bill, I support more governance at the state level than the federal level, I am very much hoping for a quality candidate to be presented to unseat Obama from office (I'm circling Romney and Cain), I am against government intrusion into people's personal lives, and I am against affirmative action measures. If you somehow think that all of this puts me on the left simply because I don't agree with you on a singular issue (one that you've failed to address in the first place) then do not bother ever directing a comment at me again because that would have to mean that you're such a radical extremist that you're on par with Osama bin Laden. If you insist on calling me a liberal, lefty, whatever again, you'll join my ignore list.

You are a centrist like Richard Simmons is straight

 

[Inthemiddle]

Negged for being such an ignorant fuck. Your problem is class envy as shown in your response above. You want what other people have without doing what other people did to get it. I wouldn't bother with school if I were you. You are angry, arrogant and clueless. I doubt that you can be taught anything in your current mind set. You make your own "luck" in this life. The sooner you realize this and take responsibility for your own actions, the sooner you can be one of the haves instead of the have nots. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes time.

In other words, you don't like how sound my arguments are, with which you disagree, but you've got nothing to rebut them. I don't see how you get any class envy out of any of that. I'm having an objective discussion about things, presenting facts and logical conclusions, and pointing out the logical flaws of the person to whom I was responding.

Also, what makes you think I am a "have not"? I have plenty. I am able to provide for my basic needs, I have no debt, I "have" all that I need, and even a few things that I want, at least as far as material possessions go. Though to be honest with you, I'm not a big "want" kind of guy anyway so maybe in my case it's easier to have at least a satisfying degree of things that I might want. The only real "want" that I have, that could be applied to financial issues, is to finish my nursing degree so that I can start the career that will make me most happy. But I'm in the process of doing that, so I don't think that really is that relevant to anything.

Do me a favor, neg me again. And again, and again. Please, I want it. I like it rough and dirty.

 

[syrenn]

Okay guys, ya'll tried to tell me I was engaging in an exercise of futility but I pushed on. I honestly thought Don'tBeStupid was capable of grasping the concept we've all been trying to teach him. Apparently he isn't. But oh well.

I'm gonna go make chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes, creamed gravy, and a nice salad and enjoy the opening game of the World Series. Later all.

Sounds delicious!

When you get back you can explain to all of us how a flat tax is fair but a flat raise isn't.

Enjoy!

Because it wont be a flat raise.

A flat raise would imply that everyone's hourly pay would go up by X dollars. An employer could be forced to raise the minimum wage to $15... that does not mean that the people already making $15 would get an increase of the same kind. Are the already $15 per hour workers going to get their pay doubled to $30 to make it fair? Or even an additional say $7 to make it fair

I think not.

 

[initforme]

"The free market wouldnt have that and would just shop elsewhere, which is the incentive for Walmart to keep their prices low "

How true that is. I'd rather shovel crap all day than work a wal mart. My son wanted to work part time there while going to college. I told him if he did he was not welcome at my house. He found somewhere else to work, somewhere better, for a much higher wage. Now thats capitalism at its finest. Dont settle for a low paying job, EVER when there is a higher paying one.

 

[Inthemiddle]

As a matter of fact, MOST students receive some sort of financial aid or grants.

Yeah, alot of them receive aid because they are female, or black, or Hispanic, or Jewish, etc. Pretty crappy world we live in when the main doors that are opened to you are based on such discrimination.

There is no guarantee to success just because one goes to college. It just helps.
NOT going to college is NO guarantee that one will be "stuck in a caste for life"...

I never said that either was a guarantee, but you have to admit that a college education in a useable field of study makes an incredibly large difference to have opportunities opened to you. Hell, even useless degrees can give you a boost. The job I have now I nearly lost out to a guy because he has a college degree while I don't. His degree is in philosophy and he doesn't even have the first clue or bit of experience in my work field. Really, I got lucky that I was chosen, because the allure of a college degree weights so heavily.

There are state schools and community colleges that off solid programs at affordable prices.

What do you call "affordable" prices? If people are working for very low wages, they tend to not have much more than two pennies to rub together after they pay their bills. Unless these programs only cost two cents, it's dishonest to say that they are "affordable" to the people about whom you're referencing.

Your post is an example of liberal whining.

Actually, my post was a criticism about the inherent contradictions present in Syren's sum total arguments. BTW, you might want to take a look at my comments to other people who call me a liberal, because clearly I am not one.

Unless one goes through proper channels to receive financial assistance or grants, no one should get a free college education.

Okay, I can agree with this. If you want to receive financial aid then you should put forth the effort to procure it. Some schools have really good financial aid offices that know about all kinds of scholarship programs out there and can give you an entire arm's length list of ones for which you qualify. And if you go to one of those schools, you'd be an idiot to not utilize that resource. On the other hand, not all schools have such good financial aid offices. And sadly, many of those scholarships and grants are often based on discriminatory grounds.

But to keep this more on point with the topic, how does this apply to the concept of a living wage? Well, sufficient assistance can help pay for education so that you can better yourself and your lot in life, obviously. Okay, but money does not give you an education. You have to have the time to devote to your studies. Which means that you have to cut back on your work hours. How is a person supposed to afford to pay bills while working only part time while in school? My suggestion would be to spend some time before enrolling to work extra hours and save money in the bank, so you can draw from it during the semester. Work some more extra hours over breaks and over the summer to continue subsidizing your reduced work hours. But, how are people supposed to do this if they weren't making a living wage in the first place, before completing school?

What you suggest is that anyone may attend the college of their choice and their education would be funded by guess who? THE TAXPAYERS.

Where in the Hell did I say anything even remotely close to that? If you're going to direct comments at me, you better make sure that you're squared away on what I've said in the first place. What I suggest is that if unskilled workers made a living wage in the first place, it would make them more capable of going to school WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. What I'm saying is that people who want to insist that workers don't deserve a living wage until they do more to obtain a better position, are presenting an essentially question begging argument, and are engaging in class warfare by saying that poor people do not deserve an opportunity to better their lot in life.

I advocate for people being paid LIVING wages (as opposed to barely surviving wages). This will reduce the need for taxpayer funded welfare. And will reduce the need for tax payer funded financial aid. A living wage will not, by itself, eliminate the need for financial aid I don't think. But the reduced need would go a long way toward starting important financial aid reforms.

No thanks. We have to fork over enough money so people can get free shit. Enough already.

So, you'd rather that things stay the same, such that many people have to rely on government funded welfare, instead of society changing on its own accord so that people would instead earn a living wage through work, and thus greatly reduce the need for taxpayer funding? Well, that's a ridiculously liberal way of thinking.

 

[Inthemiddle]

While CEOs and shareholders have been cashing in, wages as a percent of the economy have dropped to an all-time low.

While I am confident this is true, do you have anything concrete to back this up? I think it would be valuable in this thread.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Employer goes out of business if he pays more than his overhead. Widgets go up in price for all consumers if he stays in business.

DING DING DING!!!!! Here we have it folks, the real issue in all of this. The low paid workers have some kind of obligation to work for very little and be in poverty, so that the consumers (those with higher income who have the disposable wealth) can retain more of their wealth for goods they desire.

It is up the the wage earner to earn their livelihoods

Why do people keep saying this, as if it has any kind of meaning? THEY ARE EARNING IT! It's the employer who just isn't paying it. They're working, aren't they? You think it's their fault that the employment market refuses to offer a livable wage to the bottom rungs of the ladder? Well, I'll say that partially yes, they have contributed to the social ill of disproportion in pay distribution. But the higher rungs of the ladder are equally responsible for contributing to the social ill.

The unemployment rate for the college educated is 4.5%.

So it's as simple as going to college? Okay, how does one do that if they aren't already making a livable wage? How do they afford college? How do they afford to spend less time at work so that they can have sufficient time to study?

Stop whining and get an education while the government will still pay for it....

I think you should stop whining and pay the higher price for your widgets that reflect reasonable labor wages. If you can't afford the widgets, too bad. It's your responsibility to afford the things you want.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm gonna go make chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes, creamed gravy, and a nice salad and enjoy the opening game of the World Series. Later all.

Chicken fried? You must be poor. Which means you must be jealous of those who can afford NY strip.

 

[Inthemiddle]

you are a centrist like richard simmons is straight

BLOCK LIST! Stop being such a radical extremist.

 

[Bern80]

I find this interesting. With so many people in this country out of work, and with so many companies eliminating jobs, McDonald's has been one company that has created alot of jobs over the past few years. I guess I'll use your example of McDonalds. Let's say a teen still in school works at McDonalds. But then they graduate from school. What now? Go to college? And if they don't have the money, what then? How is one supposed to earn a true living wage, if they are, by your suggestions, not deserving of one?

The same way millions and millions of high school grads do every year. Earn a scholarship, take out a loan, work your way through. Or a combination of all the above like I did. You do what it takes.

Why are wing-nut conservatives so in love with romantic notions? Come back down to Earth. Just a second ago you essentially said that some people aren't even deserving of a living wage. How are they supposed to have the opportunity to change their position in life? Go to college? How are they supposed to have the money for that if they scarcely have the money to take care of themselves?

Why are you lefties so void of moral character? Not deserving more based on your skill set is not the same thing as not being able to improve said skill set in order to earn more. It's a wonder idiots like you have even survived this long when you're asking me questions as dumb as how you're supposed to earn more than what you earn now. You have a fucking excuse for everything.

Where are they? And what is one supposed to "sacrifice" if they don't have anything to begin with?



Okay, so everyone who works for low wages now should move to North Dakota. That will solve everything, right? And, of course, moving there will involve no expense whatsoever, right? Anyone who is barely scraping by now will be able to move to North Dakota despite having no money for it. Is that what you're saying?

BTW, what exactly is this "starting position" that pays upper 5 figures?

It's an example, idiot. Right now the oil business in North Dakota is booming. They're hiring everything from construction workers, to truck drivers, to fast food people at $11/hr. The sacrifice would be you giving up where you live now to earn some extra income for the future. Truck drivers for the oil companies there are currently starting at about 90k a year.

Please, can we skip the romantic notions and talk about actionable options?

Choices are actions. Actions which have consequences like sitting on message boards pissing and moaning about what you don't have, that someone else is supposed to give you instead of the much more efficient action of figure it out yourself. I'll even give you actionable option number one. STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND BLAMING OTHER FOR WHERE YOU ARE.

Uh, you mean to tell me that it is a woman's fault if her husband dies?

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. We both know that the majority of single mothers out there aren't single mother's because their husbands were killed.

In other words, you don't like how sound my arguments are, with which you disagree, but you've got nothing to rebut them. I don't see how you get any class envy out of any of that. I'm having an objective discussion about things, presenting facts and logical conclusions, and pointing out the logical flaws of the person to whom I was responding.

Also, what makes you think I am a "have not"? I have plenty. I am able to provide for my basic needs, I have no debt, I "have" all that I need, and even a few things that I want, at least as far as material possessions go. Though to be honest with you, I'm not a big "want" kind of guy anyway so maybe in my case it's easier to have at least a satisfying degree of things that I might want. The only real "want" that I have, that could be applied to financial issues, is to finish my nursing degree so that I can start the career that will make me most happy. But I'm in the process of doing that, so I don't think that really is that relevant to anything.

Do me a favor, neg me again. And again, and again. Please, I want it. I like it rough and dirty.

There is nothing intellectually sound about a thing you've said. All you've provided is page after page of excuses and blame for why people can't be expected to improve their own lives. All you are is pathetic.