Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[JRK]

No JRK, that isn't an answer to my question. The above is ignoring the question and skipping right to a solution on how to get people more money. And believe me I am NOT for giving the fedeal government anymore money than they absolutely need. I get the trade off you want to make here. Really I do. But your solution is only viable if your answer to my question above is no, you don't think people should be responsible for providing for their own needs. Something you manged to leave out of your response here.

YES IT IS the answer. Just because you do not like does not make it so Bern

No JRK it isn't. Because the reality is it's a simple yes or no question. Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs? YES OR NO? Either point out where you said one of those two words or answer the question. It isn't a matter of getting an answer I don't like. I am an objective enough person to know the difference between an answer I don't like an no answer at all.

what is a yes or no question Bern?

 

[Bern80]

The value of labor is not really all that subjective either. Some jobs-doctors, lawyers, professional engineers, CPAs, and other normally high paying work--requires a far more varied and proficient skill set than does a janitor or logger along with a specalized degree and certification by a panel of one's peers. That merits a whole lot more money than does the kid who just sweeps up and takes out the trash.

And the fact is, with or without a degree, some folks are such smarter, more motivated, more skilled, more dedicated and their labor is worth more to an employer than is the labor of other people. How much would you pay this young woman, a student at a Georgia university, to do anything?

Haftin' To Be Uproared - Occupy Atlanta - YouTube

You keep going back to the term give away. This is not about a give away
No-one here is talking about a give away
Look your talking about everything but the subject

We either give to the govt, or we allow the millions who who get up and work hard every-day a chance to earn it. Thats my opinion
The one thing going for you and Bern both, it is not going to change

We have got cut the amount we are taxed and spend on entitlement programs. Ryans bill would take medicare and go private with it. Is my idea really that different?

How is it not a give away? You want people to be GIVEN more money with no requirement on those people to earn that extra amount. That is a give away by any defintion.

 

[Bern80]

YES IT IS the answer. Just because you do not like does not make it so Bern

No JRK it isn't. Because the reality is it's a simple yes or no question. Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs? YES OR NO? Either point out where you said one of those two words or answer the question. It isn't a matter of getting an answer I don't like. I am an objective enough person to know the difference between an answer I don't like an no answer at all.

what is a yes or no question Bern?

Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs?

 

[JRK]

No JRK it isn't. Because the reality is it's a simple yes or no question. Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs? YES OR NO? Either point out where you said one of those two words or answer the question. It isn't a matter of getting an answer I don't like. I am an objective enough person to know the difference between an answer I don't like an no answer at all.

what is a yes or no question Bern?

Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs?

Of Course you should and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that
Bern yiu are to the idea that every-one should have a job that by effort, traing, desire, all of that, that payes 30,000 a year or better
some one has to take the trash out Bern. We do not have enough jobs for skilled people as it is, not to say all jobs that pay 9.00 an hour do not have some skills

Bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants
and your getting your way
What am I getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
Your choice is to keep funding the US govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt Bern
We cannot ignore it. As I stated here-in part of the Ryan bill is to make Medicare private, I ask you what is the difference?
the thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

 

[Foxfyre]

what is a yes or no question Bern?

Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs?

Of Course you should and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that
Bern yiu are to the idea that every-one should have a job that by effort, traing, desire, all of that, that payes 30,000 a year or better
some one has to take the trash out Bern. We do not have enough jobs for skilled people as it is, not to say all jobs that pay 9.00 an hour do not have some skills

Bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants
and your getting your way
What am I getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
Your choice is to keep funding the US govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt Bern
We cannot ignore it. As I stated here-in part of the Ryan bill is to make Medicare private, I ask you what is the difference?
the thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

I understand what you are saying JRK. The government is taking money away from you and giving it to people who aren't earning enough money to live on. The government takes money away from 50% of all wage earners too and is giving it to people are aren't earning enough money to live on.

Your solution is for government to tax business less and FORCE business to pay a living wage.

What Bern and I are arguing is that your solution will not only not solve the problem, it will likely cost you MORE and at the same time increase the number of people who won't be earning a living wage. We are arguing for a free market solution instead of the socialist solution you propose.

You cannot ever assume that one action producing one set of results will not create other actions creating unintended negative consequences that far offset any intended benefits.

 

[kwc57]

JRK,

I know you don't like it getting personal, but as I've said before, sometimes that is all we are left with. You seem to be too dense to understand reason and logic. The truth is and always has been that there are all levels of jobs and all levels of pay. Taking out the trash has to be done just like lawyering has to be done. Taking out the trash requires no skill at all and anyone physically capable can do it. If a trash collector quits tomorrow, there are 100 people who could replace him immediately. A lawyer spends a good number of years acquiring the knowledge and skills he needs to do the job well. If he does the job poorly, he won't stay in business very long. His job has greater value from a wage perspective than the trash collector. Now, both of them are married and they both have children and they both need to make enough to live on. The lawyer understood this as a young man fresh out of high school and did what he needed to do to secure his future. Most likely, the trash collector didn't. Just because he has a family like the lawyer does not mean that his employer has an obligation to pay him MORE simply because he needs it. If trash collecting doesn't pay enough to support a family, why is he doing it? Let's assume he is 35 years old. Why hasn't he done something to educate himself to provide for his family better? Why has he settled for a low paying job?

Is it the trash collector's employer's responsibility to give him $30 per hour for a job that only has a $10 per hour value to support his family OR is it the trash collector's responsibility to do what it takes to secure his own future over time to support his family.

For a conservative, the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual. Government mandates are a liberal solution. Always has been, always will be.

As far as welfare and entitlements, from a conservative perspective, this isn't the governments business. Our taxes shouldn't be providing welfare.

 

[kwc57]

Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs?

Of Course you should and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that
Bern yiu are to the idea that every-one should have a job that by effort, traing, desire, all of that, that payes 30,000 a year or better
some one has to take the trash out Bern. We do not have enough jobs for skilled people as it is, not to say all jobs that pay 9.00 an hour do not have some skills

Bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants
and your getting your way
What am I getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
Your choice is to keep funding the US govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt Bern
We cannot ignore it. As I stated here-in part of the Ryan bill is to make Medicare private, I ask you what is the difference?
the thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

I understand what you are saying JRK. The government is taking money away from you and giving it to people who aren't earning enough money to live on. The government takes money away from 50% of all wage earners too and is giving it to people are aren't earning enough money to live on.

Your solution is for government to tax business less and FORCE business to pay a living wage.

What Bern and I are arguing is that your solution will not only not solve the problem, it will likely cost you MORE and at the same time increase the number of people who won't be earning a living wage. We are arguing for a free market solution instead of the socialist solution you propose.

You cannot ever assume that one action producing one set of results will not create other actions creating unintended negative consequences that far offset any intended benefits.

I think that what JRK is missing here is that a "living wage" is based on what people are currently paying for goods and services. As soon as the government were to force a company to pay this "living wage", the prices of goods and services would increase proportionally and it all becomes a wash. Prices go up and those who now make a "living wage" are once again NOT making a "living wage". Maybe it's too simple to understand.

 

[Bern80]

Of Course you should

THANK YOU! Now we can move on to pointing out the brutally obvious contradiction to you answering yes to my question and at the same time insisting that all employers pay people enough to live on. If it is an employer's obligation, as you say, to pay people enough to live on, how exactly is an individual also being responsible for providing for their basic needs? Or have they done enough with their life in your eyes to be 'qualified' (which is basically do nothing) for the most menial of jobs? You can't have it both ways.

and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that

No they're not doing all they can. You can't tell me that it's impossible for people working at that wage, to move up in their respective companies, or go to school to learn a skill that pays more. This perspective is a big part of the problem. And frankly it's a persepctive seen mainly among liberals and that is a refusal to hold people accountable for where they are in life. They always assume it's somebody elses fault or that people are doing all they can, as you say. That's objectively, observably false.

Bern yiu are to the idea that every-one should have a job that by effort, traing, desire, all of that, that payes 30,000 a year or better

No I don't. This is another point I think I've been pretty clear on. There is a very viable, legitimate market for jobs that pay less than a living wage. Basically anybody who doesn't need the income to live on. If you do need the income to live on, then you shouldn't be trying to live on a job that pays less than what a person can live on. Pretty simple idea.

some one has to take the trash out Bern. We do not have enough jobs for skilled people as it is, not to say all jobs that pay 9.00 an hour do not have some skills

Yes someone has to take out the trash. That someone does not, and should not be someone who is using that job as the only means of income to support themselves.

Bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants

No they can't. They can't pay less than what a person is willing to accept.

What am I getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
Your choice is to keep funding the US govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt Bern
We cannot ignore it. As I stated here-in part of the Ryan bill is to make Medicare private, I ask you what is the difference?
the thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

No that isn't my choice. I have said repeatedly that we have the same goal. Our solutions are different and yours is wrong for both logistical and moral reasons. The only thing you or government can do to truly fix this problem is to heavily discourage apathy on the part of citizens. You show them government won't take care of them if they aren't willing to take care of themselves. You cut those that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves off of government assistance. Necessit has been, is and always will be the greatest mother of invention. When change is required for survival people will change.

 

[JRK]

Should you be responsible for providing for your basic needs?

Of Course you should and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that
Bern yiu are to the idea that every-one should have a job that by effort, traing, desire, all of that, that payes 30,000 a year or better
some one has to take the trash out Bern. We do not have enough jobs for skilled people as it is, not to say all jobs that pay 9.00 an hour do not have some skills

Bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants
and your getting your way
What am I getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
Your choice is to keep funding the US govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt Bern
We cannot ignore it. As I stated here-in part of the Ryan bill is to make Medicare private, I ask you what is the difference?
the thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

I understand what you are saying JRK. The government is taking money away from you and giving it to people who aren't earning enough money to live on. The government takes money away from 50% of all wage earners too and is giving it to people are aren't earning enough money to live on.

Your solution is for government to tax business less and FORCE business to pay a living wage.

What Bern and I are arguing is that your solution will not only not solve the problem, it will likely cost you MORE and at the same time increase the number of people who won't be earning a living wage. We are arguing for a free market solution instead of the socialist solution you propose.

You cannot ever assume that one action producing one set of results will not create other actions creating unintended negative consequences that far offset any intended benefits.

what it boild down to is your okay with US govt forcing corporations/LLCs etc.. to collect monies from the comsumer to subsidize those who do not make enough to live on, I think they should be forced to pay living wage
It would create wealth as well as make Govt smaller. Again I am not talking about a give away

 

[JRK]

Of Course you should

THANK YOU! Now we can move on to pointing out the brutally obvious contradiction to you answering yes to my question and at the same time insisting that all employers pay people enough to live on. If it is an employer's obligation, as you say, to pay people enough to live on, how exactly is an individual also being responsible for providing for their basic needs? Or have they done enough with their life in your eyes to be 'qualified' (which is basically do nothing) for the most menial of jobs? You can't have it both ways.

and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that

No they're not doing all they can. You can't tell me that it's impossible for people working at that wage, to move up in their respective companies, or go to school to learn a skill that pays more. This perspective is a big part of the problem. And frankly it's a persepctive seen mainly among liberals and that is a refusal to hold people accountable for where they are in life. They always assume it's somebody elses fault or that people are doing all they can, as you say. That's objectively, observably false.



No I don't. This is another point I think I've been pretty clear on. There is a very viable, legitimate market for jobs that pay less than a living wage. Basically anybody who doesn't need the income to live on. If you do need the income to live on, then you shouldn't be trying to live on a job that pays less than what a person can live on. Pretty simple idea.



Yes someone has to take out the trash. That someone does not, and should not be someone who is using that job as the only means of income to support themselves.

Bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants

No they can't. They can't pay less than what a person is willing to accept.

What am I getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
Your choice is to keep funding the US govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt Bern
We cannot ignore it. As I stated here-in part of the Ryan bill is to make Medicare private, I ask you what is the difference?
the thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

No that isn't my choice. I have said repeatedly that we have the same goal. Our solutions are different and yours is wrong for both logistical and moral reasons. The only thing you or government can do to truly fix this problem is to heavily discourage apathy on the part of citizens. You show them government won't take care of them if they aren't willing to take care of themselves. You cut those that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves off of government assistance. Necessit has been, is and always will be the greatest mother of invention. When change is required for survival people will change.

Bern I found it very odd that paying a person enough to live on as not being moral. You keep bringing up this that these people cannot take care of them selves
That infurates me as I know many people who work there butts of for 15-20,000 a year

Bern how old are you? where do you live?

I wish you would stop doing that as there is NO TRUTH in that
you need to go to North La, North Miss. NW Florida were poverty is a way of life that there is no escape, hell I have to trave 100s of miles from home to make the money I make and my sector is getting to where allot of us are finding it hard to find work in the US.

I dont where you get are poor are bad people. Damn dude forget about this debate. There are allot of hard working people in this country who are not making 20,000 a year, millions. There not bad people Bern, stop saying they are

 

[JRK]

of course you should

thank you! Now we can move on to pointing out the brutally obvious contradiction to you answering yes to my question and at the same time insisting that all employers pay people enough to live on. If it is an employer's obligation, as you say, to pay people enough to live on, how exactly is an individual also being responsible for providing for their basic needs? Or have they done enough with their life in your eyes to be 'qualified' (which is basically do nothing) for the most menial of jobs? You can't have it both ways.

and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that

no they're not doing all they can. You can't tell me that it's impossible for people working at that wage, to move up in their respective companies, or go to school to learn a skill that pays more. This perspective is a big part of the problem. And frankly it's a persepctive seen mainly among liberals and that is a refusal to hold people accountable for where they are in life. They always assume it's somebody elses fault or that people are doing all they can, as you say. That's objectively, observably false.



No i don't. This is another point i think i've been pretty clear on. There is a very viable, legitimate market for jobs that pay less than a living wage. Basically anybody who doesn't need the income to live on. If you do need the income to live on, then you shouldn't be trying to live on a job that pays less than what a person can live on. Pretty simple idea.



Yes someone has to take out the trash. That someone does not, and should not be someone who is using that job as the only means of income to support themselves.

bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants

no they can't. They can't pay less than what a person is willing to accept.

what am i getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
your choice is to keep funding the us govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt bern
we cannot ignore it. As i stated here-in part of the ryan bill is to make medicare private, i ask you what is the difference?
The thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

no that isn't my choice. I have said repeatedly that we have the same goal. Our solutions are different and yours is wrong for both logistical and moral reasons. The only thing you or government can do to truly fix this problem is to heavily discourage apathy on the part of citizens. You show them government won't take care of them if they aren't willing to take care of themselves. You cut those that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves off of government assistance. Necessit has been, is and always will be the greatest mother of invention. When change is required for survival people will change.

what are you thanking about?
You think my statement changes the fact we have millions in this country that are seriously underpaid
you think people who make 18000 a year in this economy are bad people? Whats wrong with you dude?

 

[Foxfyre]

Of Course you should and people who are working in the private sector making 17,000 a year are doing all they can to do just that
Bern yiu are to the idea that every-one should have a job that by effort, traing, desire, all of that, that payes 30,000 a year or better
some one has to take the trash out Bern. We do not have enough jobs for skilled people as it is, not to say all jobs that pay 9.00 an hour do not have some skills

Bern we have been talking apples and oranges for days. You keep thinling a corporation can pay what ever it wants
and your getting your way
What am I getting in return? A tax that is being collected because millions of people are no getting paid enough to have a living wage
Your choice is to keep funding the US govt to subsidize this short fall of income. We have a society that is out of tilt Bern
We cannot ignore it. As I stated here-in part of the Ryan bill is to make Medicare private, I ask you what is the difference?
the thinking is it will make it much more efficient as well as put money back into the economy, create real jobs, real wealth

I understand what you are saying JRK. The government is taking money away from you and giving it to people who aren't earning enough money to live on. The government takes money away from 50% of all wage earners too and is giving it to people are aren't earning enough money to live on.

Your solution is for government to tax business less and FORCE business to pay a living wage.

What Bern and I are arguing is that your solution will not only not solve the problem, it will likely cost you MORE and at the same time increase the number of people who won't be earning a living wage. We are arguing for a free market solution instead of the socialist solution you propose.

You cannot ever assume that one action producing one set of results will not create other actions creating unintended negative consequences that far offset any intended benefits.

I think that what JRK is missing here is that a "living wage" is based on what people are currently paying for goods and services. As soon as the government were to force a company to pay this "living wage", the prices of goods and services would increase proportionally and it all becomes a wash. Prices go up and those who now make a "living wage" are once again NOT making a "living wage". Maybe it's too simple to understand.

That is one of many consequences. Then you also have the guy who has already worked his way up to $12/hour on merit and now the beginner guy, with no experience and few skills, is getting the same wage. You have immediate disatisfaction from the more experienced workers who think their wages should be proportionately increased too. And Further putting upward pressure on the cost of good and services making it ever more difficult to compete in a global market. The result is the probability of the existing workers being asked to contribute more and fewer people being hired further shutting out the least skilled and least experienced so they don't have as much opportunity to acquire skills and experience. And voila, a brand new group is added who need more government assistance than before.

The solution of course is for the government to be scaled back so that it costs much less, for business taxes to be lowered to make expanding and hiring new people more attractive which creates new taxpayers. That's the free market solution.

And with very very few exceptions, the free market will always be better for everybody than will socialist solutions.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I can't believe some people think we shouldn't pay ANY taxes at all. Funny thing, it's the same folks who want more prisons.

 

[JRK]

I never thought I would see the day I was ashamed to be a conservative, but here we are. Bern we have people who made 100s of thousands of dollars before 2008 who have lost everything, and you saying the fix tp poverish wages is for every-one to become an engineer?

WHOSE GOING TO TAKE THE GARBAGE OUT?
WHOSE GOING TO FRAME THE HOUSES?
PAINT THEM?
PUT UP DRY-WALL?
DRIVE THE DUMP TRUCKS?

These people work just as hard at what they do as I ever have at what I do, why in gods name should we force them to have subsidies with the same monies we could be paying them a wage with?

Bern YOU HAVE GOT YOUR WAY OK?
POVERISH PEOPLE ARE @ ABOUT 50%
THANK YOU

 

[JRK]

I can't believe some people think we shouldn't pay ANY taxes at all. Funny thing, it's the same folks who want more prisons.

That avatar is, is, is
well what do you think?
you think 7.75 an hour is enough? that we should spen 600 billion a year in well fare or cur it in 1/2 and pay thosew who work enough to make it own there own?

 

[kwc57]

I can't believe some people think we shouldn't pay ANY taxes at all. Funny thing, it's the same folks who want more prisons.

This is a discussion about a living wage. If you can find anywhere in this thread where anyone advocated for paying no taxes, knock yourself out. Ohterwise, welcome ot the thread and discuss the subject at hand.

 

[JRK]

I can't believe some people think we shouldn't pay ANY taxes at all. Funny thing, it's the same folks who want more prisons.

This is a discussion about a living wage. If you can find anywhere in this thread where anyone advocated for paying no taxes, knock yourself out. Ohterwise, welcome ot the thread and discuss the subject at hand.

It is as I see it the way we ca find to lower, no-one said anything about eliminating

 

[Bern80]

Bern I found it very odd that paying a person enough to live on as not being moral. You keep bringing up this that these people cannot take care of them selves
That infurates me as I know many people who work there butts of for 15-20,000 a year

No. I keep bringing up that most people, with very little effort, CAN take care of themselves. It is immoral to obligate someone else to that which you are perfectly capable of doing yourself.

As far as the people you know who 'work their butts off for 15-20k a year' I'm going to let you in a BIG secret that most wealthy people already know (though I did actually mention it before); Generating income does not increase proportionally to how hard you work. It's not about how hard you work. Stop complaining about the poor souls that work hard for so little. Such a complaint is based on the presumption that the harder one works the more income one should generate or the harder the work the more someone shoud get paid. If you don't get any thing else out of this, that is a fundamental idea you need to grasp. Compensation is based on your value to someone else. Your value is based on demand and scarcity of your skills. It is NOT based on how hard you work, how many hours you put in, or what you need to live on.

Bern how old are you? where do you live?

30, Minnesota.

I wish you would stop doing that as there is NO TRUTH in that

Stop doing what?

you need to go to North La, North Miss. NW Florida were poverty is a way of life that there is no escape, hell I have to trave 100s of miles from home to make the money I make and my sector is getting to where allot of us are finding it hard to find work in the US.

THAN LEAVE THERE, if poverty is way of life and there are no good paying jobs. As I have mentioned before there are opportunities out there. Are they all going to be within your immediate geographical region? Of course not. It's a simple question of what you're willing to sacrifice now, to improve your future.

I dont where you get are poor are bad people. Damn dude forget about this debate. There are allot of hard working people in this country who are not making 20,000 a year, millions. There not bad people Bern, stop saying they are

Of course they aren't all bad people. Just because they aren't bad people doesn't mean they've done everything they can to maximize their earning potential.

 

[JRK]

Bern I found it very odd that paying a person enough to live on as not being moral. You keep bringing up this that these people cannot take care of them selves
That infurates me as I know many people who work there butts of for 15-20,000 a year

No. I keep bringing up that most people, with very little effort, CAN take care of themselves. It is immoral to obligate someone else to that which you are perfectly capable of doing yourself.

As far as the people you know who 'work their butts off for 15-20k a year' I'm going to let you in a BIG secret that most wealthy people already know (though I did actually mention it before); Generating income does increase proportionally to how hard you work. It's not about how hard you work. Stop complaining about the poor souls that work hard for so little. Such a complaint is based on the presumption that the harder one works the more income one should generate or the harder the work the more someone shoud get paid. If you don't get any thing else out of this, that is a fundamental idea you need to grasp. Compensation is based on your value to someone else. Your value is based on demand and scarcity of your skills. It is NOT based on how hard you work, how many hours you put in, or what you need to live on.

Bern how old are you? where do you live?

30, Minnesota.



Stop doing what?

you need to go to North La, North Miss. NW Florida were poverty is a way of life that there is no escape, hell I have to trave 100s of miles from home to make the money I make and my sector is getting to where allot of us are finding it hard to find work in the US.

THAN LEAVE THERE, if poverty is way of life and there are no good paying jobs. As I have mentioned before there are opportunities out there. Are they all going to be within your immediate geographical region? Of course not. It's a simple question of what you're willing to sacrifice now, to improve your future.

I dont where you get are poor are bad people. Damn dude forget about this debate. There are allot of hard working people in this country who are not making 20,000 a year, millions. There not bad people Bern, stop saying they are

Of course they aren't all bad people. Just because they aren't bad people doesn't mean they've done everything they can to maximize their earning potential.

Bern someone has to take the garbage out. You have a serious issue with people who work there butts off and make 17,000 a year, it borders on hate
Bern there are just so many jobs for people out side of Many La. If every-one did what you keep saying they need to do then who would do the work that there doing now? And what ever it is you do to make money, what if you woke up one day and there was twice as many trying to do it?
being from where you are explains 95% of it. Poverty in many areas in the south is really bad. let me add that unions is why the most of the North does have that problem. So whats the difference in a Union mandating a minimum wage or the federal govt?
Toyota was ready to take the market to the south with non union labor GM and Chrysler lost because of the UAWs insane salaries and legacy cost, Obama stopped that (and GWB).

 

[Foxfyre]

Our Sunday newspaper here in New Mexico is full of classified ads for jobs paying a living wage or better and with our new pro business governor, our unemployment rate is below the national average right now. But some people are not willing to go to work to earn a few bucks more than what they can get from unemployment insurance or other government assistance. They would rather work less and/or stay in their small communities and have less money. No amount of increase in the minimum age will change that.

I was watching a program just a few minutes ago in which North Dakota currently has 18,000 job openings paying $50k or more. If you show up with decent references and the proper license, you can go to work today driving a truck for $80k. The ND unemployment rate is 3.5%. They too have a pro business governor and legislature and don't pay people all that handsomely to live mostly on government handouts.

People who are willing to do what they have to do in order to work can work in this country even in this miserable overall economy.

What is more hard hearted? A concept of government established wages and higher unemployment? Or the conservative concept that the free market working will produce a social environment far better than anything the government can accomplish?