Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[JRK]

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?

Those 18000 jobs in N.D have 100s of thousands applying for them, I know I am one of them. Thats a Obama plug. Also most of those jobs are man camps, for a faimly there is nothing there. we have a project there now in which 2 men live in a small trailer
I ask Bern where he was from, his home explained much to me

In the South there are millions living in poverty. Just google the state of La. and its avg income per Parrish.
Missiissippi, same, NW Florida, same
Its like I told Bern, I do not know where home is for you, but in the south it is much different.
I am fine. I may go to Austrailia or Canada
I might just day trade stocks for a while. This debate is really a local issue. In Florida there is si little work for the home builders 10.00 an hour is the going wage, when there is work.

Obama has not helped the matter either

 

[Bern80]

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).

Part of your problem is the the never ending stream of excuses you provide for people to not better themselves. Not that I really believe it, but let's assume there just aren't any good paying jobs around you for anyone. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. That is an option you know. But instead a semi- can do attitude of 'okay we can try that' the first thing you did was make an excuse as to why it's not even worth trying.

 

[JRK]

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).

Part of your problem is the the never ending stream of excuses you provide for people to not better themselves. Not that I really believe it, but let's assume there just aren't any good paying jobs around you for anyone. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. That is an option you know. But instead a semi- can do attitude of 'okay we can try that' the first thing you did was make an excuse as to why it's not even worth trying.

Bern just thank god you were not born into nor do you have to work your way out of it in the year of our lord 2011
Bern you and I have nothing left to talk about, the worls I know is real is not real to you. You are as they say the problem, and is you have convinced yourself that cutting welfare 100s of billions so people can better them selves is a liberal idea as well as a moral hazard, good luck with living the rest of your life in that world
God Bless

 

[Bern80]

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).

Part of your problem is the the never ending stream of excuses you provide for people to not better themselves. Not that I really believe it, but let's assume there just aren't any good paying jobs around you for anyone. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. That is an option you know. But instead a semi- can do attitude of 'okay we can try that' the first thing you did was make an excuse as to why it's not even worth trying.

Bern just thank god you were not born into nor do you have to work your way out of it in the year of our lord 2011
Bern you and I have nothing left to talk about, the worls I know is real is not real to you. You are as they say the problem, and is you have convinced yourself that cutting welfare 100s of billions so people can better them selves is a liberal idea as well as a moral hazard, good luck with living the rest of your life in that world
God Bless

Dude you're not gonna get the last word when you continually lie about what I've said. You are being intellectually dishonest JRK. Everyone here has agreed that we need to reduce welfare roles. Everyone here is concerned about how much that is costing tax payers. The debate has NEVER been about whether or not welfare needs to decrease. It is about HOW best to do that. Your way WILL NOT WORK.

 

[JRK]

Part of your problem is the the never ending stream of excuses you provide for people to not better themselves. Not that I really believe it, but let's assume there just aren't any good paying jobs around you for anyone. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. That is an option you know. But instead a semi- can do attitude of 'okay we can try that' the first thing you did was make an excuse as to why it's not even worth trying.

Bern just thank god you were not born into nor do you have to work your way out of it in the year of our lord 2011
Bern you and I have nothing left to talk about, the worls I know is real is not real to you. You are as they say the problem, and is you have convinced yourself that cutting welfare 100s of billions so people can better them selves is a liberal idea as well as a moral hazard, good luck with living the rest of your life in that world
God Bless

Dude you're not gonna get the last word when you continually lie about what I've said. How many times does this make now, that I've told you I want welfare to decrease as much as you? It is YOU that has the closed mind. You are the one stuck on one and only one way to do that.

When have I lied about what you have posted?
you have told me countless times this is a liberal idea. I have never seen you state anything excpet corporations good, people sorry
In life as you get older you will choose your words allot wiser than you have hear. not many will repsect a person who gets down on a person who is down
I am not stuck on one way, you have not been reading my other post's on fossil fuels as well as a complete over haul of our tax system
I would have stopped this with you along time ago, but you kept calling people sorry and lazy and pissed me off

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

You'll never get the lib/pro welfare state people to agree with this.
They will come up with all kinds of excuses. Not one of them are valid.
The idea there there are "no jobs" out there is false.
There are good jobs for people who WANT to work. They will have to move to where the work is. So what?

 

[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?

You'll never get the lib/pro welfare state people to agree with this.
They will come up with all kinds of excuses. Not one of them are valid.
The idea there there are "no jobs" out there is false.
There are good jobs for people who WANT to work. They will have to move to where the work is. So what?

No, the average true leftist is pretty good at rejecting any information that is inconvenient to their schematic. I was hoping for JRK, who keeps claiming to be a conservative, to see the light though. He sees the only way to help the poor and underemployed is to pay them a living wage and problem solved. No more poor people. Everybody is able to support their family. But the inconvenient fact is that not all people are employable at ANY wage and not all WANT to be employed at any wage and we have poured $10 TRILLION dollars into the war on Poverty since the 1960's and we still have poor people and underemployed people.

The guy that takes out the trash works for the prevailing wage for a guy who takes out the trash. If he wants more pay than that he needs to qualify for a job that pays better than taking out the trash. That is also inconvenient to the leftist schematic.

And those of us who know this and keep trying to teach it are now being accused of being heartless and uncaring and selfish and being accused of wanting all sorts of things that we have never said and don't want. Which that tactic is also part of the leftist schematic.

It's pretty hard to make folks believe you're a conservative when you keep pushing a strongly leftist solution for a fairly simple problem.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I love it when people think they know what the "average" anything is.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I love it when people think they know what the "average" anything is.

What?!!!!

 

[JRK]

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?

You'll never get the lib/pro welfare state people to agree with this.
They will come up with all kinds of excuses. Not one of them are valid.
The idea there there are "no jobs" out there is false.
There are good jobs for people who WANT to work. They will have to move to where the work is. So what?

what does a job in N.D going to do for a faimly of 4 in Day Florida?
I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT, and some how it keeps popping up as a liberal idea.
15000 jobs in N.D. that have 100,000 fighting for them is going to fix the millions who are on well-fare

Think people, Think

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

You'll never get the lib/pro welfare state people to agree with this.
They will come up with all kinds of excuses. Not one of them are valid.
The idea there there are "no jobs" out there is false.
There are good jobs for people who WANT to work. They will have to move to where the work is. So what?

what does a job in N.D going to do for a faimly of 4 in Day Florida?
I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT, and some how it keeps popping up as a liberal idea.
15000 jobs in N.D. that have 100,000 fighting for them is going to fix the millions who are on well-fare

Think people, Think

I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT

How?

 

[Bern80]

Bern just thank god you were not born into nor do you have to work your way out of it in the year of our lord 2011
Bern you and I have nothing left to talk about, the worls I know is real is not real to you. You are as they say the problem, and is you have convinced yourself that cutting welfare 100s of billions so people can better them selves is a liberal idea as well as a moral hazard, good luck with living the rest of your life in that world
God Bless

Dude you're not gonna get the last word when you continually lie about what I've said. How many times does this make now, that I've told you I want welfare to decrease as much as you? It is YOU that has the closed mind. You are the one stuck on one and only one way to do that.

When have I lied about what you have posted?
you have told me countless times this is a liberal idea. I have never seen you state anything excpet corporations good, people sorry
In life as you get older you will choose your words allot wiser than you have hear. not many will repsect a person who gets down on a person who is down
I am not stuck on one way, you have not been reading my other post's on fossil fuels as well as a complete over haul of our tax system
I would have stopped this with you along time ago, but you kept calling people sorry and lazy and pissed me off

I'm assuming you already are old then? What exactly does that say about you when you have to continually mischaracterize a person's position to make your own look good? Nowhere have I ever stated that corporations are all good or workers are all bad. This is not a value judgement debate. Nor have I called people sorry or lazy. Saying that workers are not entitled to a living wage is not the same things as saying workers are bad. Not attaining your full earning potential is not calling people lazy. Good enough is good enough for a lot of people. The ONLY people who I have a problem with are those that demand more, but are unwilling to do anything about getting more themselves and insist it's someone elses responsibility to provide for them.

Lastly you ARE stuck on one way. Unless of course you can point out anywhere else in this thread where you have suggested anything other than making employers pay people enough to live in order for people to provide for their basic needs.

 

[editec]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

 

[Bern80]

You'll never get the lib/pro welfare state people to agree with this.
They will come up with all kinds of excuses. Not one of them are valid.
The idea there there are "no jobs" out there is false.
There are good jobs for people who WANT to work. They will have to move to where the work is. So what?

what does a job in N.D going to do for a faimly of 4 in Day Florida?
I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT, and some how it keeps popping up as a liberal idea.
15000 jobs in N.D. that have 100,000 fighting for them is going to fix the millions who are on well-fare

Think people, Think

I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT

How?

By mandating that employers pay everyone at least enough to live on. Of course making employers effectively increase people's pay without said employs having to give any extra isn't exactly 'earning it'.

 

[JRK]

You'll never get the lib/pro welfare state people to agree with this.
They will come up with all kinds of excuses. Not one of them are valid.
The idea there there are "no jobs" out there is false.
There are good jobs for people who WANT to work. They will have to move to where the work is. So what?

what does a job in N.D going to do for a faimly of 4 in Day Florida?
I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT, and some how it keeps popping up as a liberal idea.
15000 jobs in N.D. that have 100,000 fighting for them is going to fix the millions who are on well-fare

Think people, Think

I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT

How?

In the south there are millions who work hard every day and get paid 8-11 an hour, some places in the wext also

In 07 the corporate tax rate and te budget for wellfare was about the same
Cut the tax the consumer provides for welfare thru the corporations, use that wealth to up the minimum wage to at least 12.00, maybe 13.00 an hour

Millions show up and do the same job they did the day before, earn it, the corporation sees nothing but an increase in production (probably, in my opinion)
well-fare as well as cost for Medicare and medicade go down
the free market injects 150 billion in the economy, the consumer eliminates millions who are on give aways in trade for tax payers
it is a win-win-win-win

 

[JRK]

what does a job in N.D going to do for a faimly of 4 in Day Florida?
I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT, and some how it keeps popping up as a liberal idea.
15000 jobs in N.D. that have 100,000 fighting for them is going to fix the millions who are on well-fare

Think people, Think

I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT

How?

By mandating that employers pay everyone at least enough to live on. Of course making employers effectively increase people's pay without said employs having to give any extra is exactly 'earning it'.

Bern a honest days work is being set pay wise on the low end by the federal govt. This either by intent or by accident keeps millions of people in welfare.
Do you really think the corporation cares if they pay the federal govt or there employees? you damn right they do
the employee they get for 25,000 a year is a far more willing to put forth effort than one who makes 15,000 a year
its a choice the federal govt has gave them, not you, me nor the poor bastard who is in Monroe La making 8.00 an hour

One of the things managing trade unions taught me was that a laborer making 14.00 an hour shows up with his tools, works safly, passes he drug test and has no issue with a hard days work

in the private sector one making 9.00 is just looking for a way out

 

[Bern80]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

Obviously it should be fairly simple to define an amount of money that is enough to take care of a person's basic needs. I don't think this debate has ever been about whether such a thing exists. The point of the debate or contention of the debate is who is responsible for providing it.

 

[JRK]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

The federal givt thinks there is. Ask your self what would it take to live in one year bare with health ins and tell me what it is
500 a week?
Australia has a 15.00 an hour minimum wage and there making it work. Last I checked there dollar and ours was within 4 pennies

 

[JRK]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

Obviously it should be fairly simple to define an amount of money that is enough to take care of a person's basic needs. I don't think this debate has ever been about whether such a thing exists. The point of the debate or contention of the debate is who is responsible for providing it.

Bern in your mind that is what the debate is about. The federal govt set a minimum wage that does not allow for most on the bottom end to get out of poverty, get there own ins. simply live
in return they collect 600 billion to 1 trillion from us each year to subsidize that minimum wage. Thats what this debate is about
do you want the private sector to re-invest in the private sector or the govt. They care, they have no choice

 

[Bern80]

what does a job in N.D going to do for a faimly of 4 in Day Florida?
I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT, and some how it keeps popping up as a liberal idea.
15000 jobs in N.D. that have 100,000 fighting for them is going to fix the millions who are on well-fare

Think people, Think

I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT

How?

In the south there are millions who work hard every day and get paid 8-11 an hour, some places in the wext also

In 07 the corporate tax rate and te budget for wellfare was about the same
Cut the tax the consumer provides for welfare thru the corporations, use that wealth to up the minimum wage to at least 12.00, maybe 13.00 an hour

Millions show up and do the same job they did the day before, earn it, the corporation sees nothing but an increase in production (probably, in my opinion)
well-fare as well as cost for Medicare and medicade go down
the free market injects 150 billion in the economy, the consumer eliminates millions who are on give aways in trade for tax payers
it is a win-win-win-win

No it isn't. You keep ingoring some pretty basic well established economic realities of government mandated wage increases. Everytime one occurs, unemployment goes UP. So you get some people that maybe no longer need to be welfare because you made employers pay them more. But you've also created people that now need welfare because they don't have job at all.

And please, get this concept through your skull. COMPENSATION IS NOT, NOR HAS EVER BEEN, ABOUT HOW HARD A PERSON WORKS. So stop with the sob story about how hard all these people work for so little. I don't care if you work 80 hours a week. If WHAT you're doing for 80 hours a week is flipping burgers you're still gonna have tough time making ends meet.

You can quite ripping on me for the things I don't know because I'm so young. You oughta be far more concerned about how you reached the age you reached and still have no grasp of the basic economic concepts that will prevent your solution from actually working. It's interesting the country of Australia was brought up a while back and how well you claim it is working for them. Our company has a fairly significant market in that country and the complaint of the consumer is always the same. That the exact same items cost far less here than they do in Australia. You said we have close to an even dollar ratio yet the same product there that we make costs over $2000 Australian where here that item sells for around $1500. Think that might have something to do with their labor costs?