How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[OnePercenter]

My companys lowest paid worker is probably making under 20k a year full time. Hard to live off that

Back it can be done. And if they don't like it - they are free to go work somewhere else.

And not for nothing - but in my last position my salary increased $17,000 as my performance dictated increases and promotions. So that person may be at $20,000 today, but they don't have to be there tomorrow (and won't be if they perform).

It can barely be done, certainly not easy for lets say, a single mother. I don't think any American working 40 hours a week should be below the line of poverty.

tough shit. The stupid belief that small business owners, who DO work more than forty a week, should pay their unskilled workers more than they earn themselves is the height of fiscal stupidity. You morons who want others to subsidize the stupidity of others should finance that shit yourselves. Adopt an inner city single mom with five kids who can't read or speak like a human and who has never stayed at any job for more than two weeks, and giver her your paycheck when she starts working as a babysitter for other welfare moms so they can attend their required welfare jobs classes. I hope you make a lot of money, because she needs quite a bit, with five kids, to earn above the poverty level.

what stupid douches progressives are.

That's BULLSHIT!!!! Any company that is adequately 'procedured' and financed doesn't require an owners presents.

 

[OnePercenter]

The answer to the question asked of me is "However many jobs they need to live the lifestyle they've chosen to have." If one wishes to work only 35-40 hours a week at minimum wage, then concessions must be made, like cellphones and cable for instance, or if you're very stupid and had kids whilst working McDonald's, perhaps harsher cuts, like cars and having a 2bdrm apartment.


I've no sympathy and nothing ya'll say is going to give me any. While I do have money in the bank, my family and I live very well off of about $36k a year and it's not like where I live in Alaska is 'cheap' either; we have one of the higher costs of living in the nation.

It's not hard for a family to come up with $36k a year, even /if/ one has made stupid ass decisions in ones life.

Poverty in the US is a mixture of laziness and irresponsibility; two things that don't go well for creating a future for yourself. It's up to the individual to get over both those hurdles--not the taxpayer.

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

 

[OnePercenter]

^ The last has not only been done, it's done regularly by business professionals. My mother was /constantly/ taking classes while working full time. She has a huge list of degrees and certifications from it.

Oh sure, lots of people do it that way.

My sister had a job at a very well known hospital, but they eventually wanted her to get a degree in her field of work. She was married with two children and it was a struggle to work and take care of the kids. But she had no choice. It was go to college part-time or lose her job down the road.

People who are in serious relationships do the same, except they both live off of one paycheck. One works while the other attends school. He or she will work 12 hour days on the weekends to help out a bit. They don't have children to avoid that huge expense. After the one graduates, the other starts to attend college while the college graduate works.

People on the left would be amazed what you can accomplish without government if they only tried.

Why didn't the 'well known hospital' pay for her advanced education and her time to go?

Kinda looks like you don't want to name the hospital because they do have an education program.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yea but we could pass that down the line to the government too, they're the ones who put in the "Drug Free" safety protocols that employers have to deal with, and which workers comp adjusters use to lay out costs to employer's - the MoD system tags employer's with increase coverage costs for not having a "drug free" component to their written safety plan.

Even so, I do think there's a problem with drugs - but then again not, legalize and let these folks overdose if that's what they chose to do with their lives... I'm not against hiring some folks to clean the dead bodies of addicts off the streets though.

The reality is insurance companies do have control. It's why we have forced seat belt laws across the country. It's why states no longer set the DUI standards in their own state. They are pressured and even threatened by the federal government to adopt their standards.

At least here in Ohio, employers have the option to have government workman's compensation or private insurance compensation; but you have to have workman's compensation no matter how you provide it to your employees.

Because I work in transportation, the federal government requires us to drug test. My employer could care less if any of us smoke pot on the weekend. But because it's the law, it also helps his WC rates at the same time. Workman's compensation is a huge expense for businesses, so they are always looking for ways to pay less.

When people choose drug usage over work and even careers, I do see it as a problem. Especially when government gives them the option to work or collect benefits of some sort because they can't give up the drugs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

^ The last has not only been done, it's done regularly by business professionals. My mother was /constantly/ taking classes while working full time. She has a huge list of degrees and certifications from it.

Oh sure, lots of people do it that way.

My sister had a job at a very well known hospital, but they eventually wanted her to get a degree in her field of work. She was married with two children and it was a struggle to work and take care of the kids. But she had no choice. It was go to college part-time or lose her job down the road.

People who are in serious relationships do the same, except they both live off of one paycheck. One works while the other attends school. He or she will work 12 hour days on the weekends to help out a bit. They don't have children to avoid that huge expense. After the one graduates, the other starts to attend college while the college graduate works.

People on the left would be amazed what you can accomplish without government if they only tried.

Why didn't the 'well known hospital' pay for her advanced education and her time to go?

Kinda looks like you don't want to name the hospital because they do have an education program.

Another point that flew right over your head.

The problem was not who paid for it, the problem was raising a family, working full-time, and going to college. But she did it, and I'm sure the hospital paid for her college. But even if they didn't, what choice would she have had?

 

[OnePercenter]

m

Do tell why all these 13M are poor. Do they all suffer from handicaps and mental illnesses that prevent them from working? Do they all have families who apparently shit on them and threw them out for the trouble?

Nay, far more likely they've made stupid decisions, similar to my son's, in trying to live a lifestyle that their paycheck cannot provide, or worse, those who turned to crime rather than commit themselves to a "proper" life.

I feel no obligation to support those who make stupid decisions in their life, especially when I believe, and am regularly told, that I've no right to tell someone how to live. To clarify, I've no problem with them doing as they wish, right up until they start reaching in my wallet to pay for their choices.

If the fools need more money, then they best get off their asses and earn it. There is nothing preventing them from finding a second job so they can have that unlimited cell phone plan, there is nothing preventing them from taking on a 2h a day paper route to pay for whatever it is they feel is holding them back from success...

The >13M are full-time workers. They are paid so little that they qualify as poor.

According to you, how many hours per week are full-time workers to work? 40, 80, 120?

According to you, how many jobs are workers to have? 2, 3, 4?

As of this week I have 790 employees. The lowest paid employees are paid $48,950.00 per year, plus 100% company paid benefits. Every employer should be doing his/her part.

My companys lowest paid worker is probably making under 20k a year full time. Hard to live off that

one person can live on that. This is why we used to teach people to work hard and don't get married till you are able to support a family. Also don't have sex or children, until you're married..

That's $1400.00/mo after taxes. Better get a number of roommates. Chump change.

 

[OnePercenter]

^ The last has not only been done, it's done regularly by business professionals. My mother was /constantly/ taking classes while working full time. She has a huge list of degrees and certifications from it.

Oh sure, lots of people do it that way.

My sister had a job at a very well known hospital, but they eventually wanted her to get a degree in her field of work. She was married with two children and it was a struggle to work and take care of the kids. But she had no choice. It was go to college part-time or lose her job down the road.

People who are in serious relationships do the same, except they both live off of one paycheck. One works while the other attends school. He or she will work 12 hour days on the weekends to help out a bit. They don't have children to avoid that huge expense. After the one graduates, the other starts to attend college while the college graduate works.

People on the left would be amazed what you can accomplish without government if they only tried.

Why didn't the 'well known hospital' pay for her advanced education and her time to go?

Kinda looks like you don't want to name the hospital because they do have an education program.

Another point that flew right over your head.

The problem was not who paid for it, the problem was raising a family, working full-time, and going to college. But she did it, and I'm sure the hospital paid for her college. But even if they didn't, what choice would she have had?

Corporate education programs are split work/school 20/20.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The answer to the question asked of me is "However many jobs they need to live the lifestyle they've chosen to have." If one wishes to work only 35-40 hours a week at minimum wage, then concessions must be made, like cellphones and cable for instance, or if you're very stupid and had kids whilst working McDonald's, perhaps harsher cuts, like cars and having a 2bdrm apartment.


I've no sympathy and nothing ya'll say is going to give me any. While I do have money in the bank, my family and I live very well off of about $36k a year and it's not like where I live in Alaska is 'cheap' either; we have one of the higher costs of living in the nation.

It's not hard for a family to come up with $36k a year, even /if/ one has made stupid ass decisions in ones life.

Poverty in the US is a mixture of laziness and irresponsibility; two things that don't go well for creating a future for yourself. It's up to the individual to get over both those hurdles--not the taxpayer.

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

 

[OnePercenter]

The answer to the question asked of me is "However many jobs they need to live the lifestyle they've chosen to have." If one wishes to work only 35-40 hours a week at minimum wage, then concessions must be made, like cellphones and cable for instance, or if you're very stupid and had kids whilst working McDonald's, perhaps harsher cuts, like cars and having a 2bdrm apartment.


I've no sympathy and nothing ya'll say is going to give me any. While I do have money in the bank, my family and I live very well off of about $36k a year and it's not like where I live in Alaska is 'cheap' either; we have one of the higher costs of living in the nation.

It's not hard for a family to come up with $36k a year, even /if/ one has made stupid ass decisions in ones life.

Poverty in the US is a mixture of laziness and irresponsibility; two things that don't go well for creating a future for yourself. It's up to the individual to get over both those hurdles--not the taxpayer.

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

 

[Aries]

My companys lowest paid worker is probably making under 20k a year full time. Hard to live off that

Back it can be done. And if they don't like it - they are free to go work somewhere else.

And not for nothing - but in my last position my salary increased $17,000 as my performance dictated increases and promotions. So that person may be at $20,000 today, but they don't have to be there tomorrow (and won't be if they perform).

It can barely be done, certainly not easy for lets say, a single mother. I don't think any American working 40 hours a week should be below the line of poverty.

tough shit. The stupid belief that small business owners, who DO work more than forty a week, should pay their unskilled workers more than they earn themselves is the height of fiscal stupidity. You morons who want others to subsidize the stupidity of others should finance that shit yourselves. Adopt an inner city single mom with five kids who can't read or speak like a human and who has never stayed at any job for more than two weeks, and giver her your paycheck when she starts working as a babysitter for other welfare moms so they can attend their required welfare jobs classes. I hope you make a lot of money, because she needs quite a bit, with five kids, to earn above the poverty level.

what stupid douches progressives are.

I work for a large company who could certainly afford to pay everyone a living wage and then some. They just don't have to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My companys lowest paid worker is probably making under 20k a year full time. Hard to live off that

Back it can be done. And if they don't like it - they are free to go work somewhere else.

And not for nothing - but in my last position my salary increased $17,000 as my performance dictated increases and promotions. So that person may be at $20,000 today, but they don't have to be there tomorrow (and won't be if they perform).

It can barely be done, certainly not easy for lets say, a single mother. I don't think any American working 40 hours a week should be below the line of poverty.

tough shit. The stupid belief that small business owners, who DO work more than forty a week, should pay their unskilled workers more than they earn themselves is the height of fiscal stupidity. You morons who want others to subsidize the stupidity of others should finance that shit yourselves. Adopt an inner city single mom with five kids who can't read or speak like a human and who has never stayed at any job for more than two weeks, and giver her your paycheck when she starts working as a babysitter for other welfare moms so they can attend their required welfare jobs classes. I hope you make a lot of money, because she needs quite a bit, with five kids, to earn above the poverty level.

what stupid douches progressives are.

I work for a large company who could certainly afford to pay everyone a living wage and then some. They just don't have to.

That's exactly correct. Nobody pays more than they have to for labor. Your company doesn't, I don't, you don't. Most of us don't.

 

[Aries]

My companys lowest paid worker is probably making under 20k a year full time. Hard to live off that

Back it can be done. And if they don't like it - they are free to go work somewhere else.

And not for nothing - but in my last position my salary increased $17,000 as my performance dictated increases and promotions. So that person may be at $20,000 today, but they don't have to be there tomorrow (and won't be if they perform).

It can barely be done, certainly not easy for lets say, a single mother. I don't think any American working 40 hours a week should be below the line of poverty.

tough shit. The stupid belief that small business owners, who DO work more than forty a week, should pay their unskilled workers more than they earn themselves is the height of fiscal stupidity. You morons who want others to subsidize the stupidity of others should finance that shit yourselves. Adopt an inner city single mom with five kids who can't read or speak like a human and who has never stayed at any job for more than two weeks, and giver her your paycheck when she starts working as a babysitter for other welfare moms so they can attend their required welfare jobs classes. I hope you make a lot of money, because she needs quite a bit, with five kids, to earn above the poverty level.

what stupid douches progressives are.

I work for a large company who could certainly afford to pay everyone a living wage and then some. They just don't have to.

That's exactly correct. Nobody pays more than they have to for labor. Your company doesn't, I don't, you don't. Most of us don't.

And that has proven to keep too many Americans under the line of poverty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The answer to the question asked of me is "However many jobs they need to live the lifestyle they've chosen to have." If one wishes to work only 35-40 hours a week at minimum wage, then concessions must be made, like cellphones and cable for instance, or if you're very stupid and had kids whilst working McDonald's, perhaps harsher cuts, like cars and having a 2bdrm apartment.


I've no sympathy and nothing ya'll say is going to give me any. While I do have money in the bank, my family and I live very well off of about $36k a year and it's not like where I live in Alaska is 'cheap' either; we have one of the higher costs of living in the nation.

It's not hard for a family to come up with $36k a year, even /if/ one has made stupid ass decisions in ones life.

Poverty in the US is a mixture of laziness and irresponsibility; two things that don't go well for creating a future for yourself. It's up to the individual to get over both those hurdles--not the taxpayer.

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

 

[Aries]

Pay needs to rise in proportion to the rise of living costs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Back it can be done. And if they don't like it - they are free to go work somewhere else.

And not for nothing - but in my last position my salary increased $17,000 as my performance dictated increases and promotions. So that person may be at $20,000 today, but they don't have to be there tomorrow (and won't be if they perform).

It can barely be done, certainly not easy for lets say, a single mother. I don't think any American working 40 hours a week should be below the line of poverty.

tough shit. The stupid belief that small business owners, who DO work more than forty a week, should pay their unskilled workers more than they earn themselves is the height of fiscal stupidity. You morons who want others to subsidize the stupidity of others should finance that shit yourselves. Adopt an inner city single mom with five kids who can't read or speak like a human and who has never stayed at any job for more than two weeks, and giver her your paycheck when she starts working as a babysitter for other welfare moms so they can attend their required welfare jobs classes. I hope you make a lot of money, because she needs quite a bit, with five kids, to earn above the poverty level.

what stupid douches progressives are.

I work for a large company who could certainly afford to pay everyone a living wage and then some. They just don't have to.

That's exactly correct. Nobody pays more than they have to for labor. Your company doesn't, I don't, you don't. Most of us don't.

And that has proven to keep too many Americans under the line of poverty.

No, the solution to going over the line of poverty is to gain better paying employment, or work enough hours to not be in poverty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pay needs to rise in proportion to the rise of living costs.

Why, and by whom?

 

[P@triot]

Pay needs to rise in proportion to the rise of living costs.

The "cost of living" only rises because the left continues to increase minimum wage which causes everyone to raise their prices to cover the new labor costs (which results in the minimal wage worker being no further ahead). It's a vicious cycle of stupidity which could only come from the left.

 

[Aries]

It can barely be done, certainly not easy for lets say, a single mother. I don't think any American working 40 hours a week should be below the line of poverty.

tough shit. The stupid belief that small business owners, who DO work more than forty a week, should pay their unskilled workers more than they earn themselves is the height of fiscal stupidity. You morons who want others to subsidize the stupidity of others should finance that shit yourselves. Adopt an inner city single mom with five kids who can't read or speak like a human and who has never stayed at any job for more than two weeks, and giver her your paycheck when she starts working as a babysitter for other welfare moms so they can attend their required welfare jobs classes. I hope you make a lot of money, because she needs quite a bit, with five kids, to earn above the poverty level.

what stupid douches progressives are.

I work for a large company who could certainly afford to pay everyone a living wage and then some. They just don't have to.

That's exactly correct. Nobody pays more than they have to for labor. Your company doesn't, I don't, you don't. Most of us don't.

And that has proven to keep too many Americans under the line of poverty.

No, the solution to going over the line of poverty is to gain better paying employment, or work enough hours to not be in poverty.

This is getting really repetitive. Education needs to be affordable, healthcare needs to be affordable, pay rates need to rise in proportion to living costs. These things will be better off for society as a whole. It will lower poverty rates and most importantly it will set people up who are born into poverty, to be able to climb out. The middle class will boom again and the wealth gap will gradually shrink.

 

[Aries]

Pay needs to rise in proportion to the rise of living costs.

Why, and by whom?

Because too many American kids go to bed hungry at night God damn it. Too many families struggle to make ends meet. The middle class has been shrinking for quite some ti

Pay needs to rise in proportion to the rise of living costs.

The "cost of living" only rises because the left continues to increase minimum wage which causes everyone to raise their prices to cover the new labor costs (which results in the minimal wage worker being no further ahead). It's a vicious cycle of stupidity which could only come from the left.[/QUOTE


I'll pay 17 cents more for my big Mac to make sure those workers make a living wage.

When I ran a business, it was a very small price change when minimum wage went up.

This Is How Much A Big Mac Would Cost If The Minimum Wage Was $15

 

[P@triot]

The "cost of living" only rises because the left continues to increase minimum wage which causes everyone to raise their prices to cover the new labor costs (which results in the minimal wage worker being no further ahead). It's a vicious cycle of stupidity which could only come from the left.

I'll pay 17 cents more for my big Mac to make sure those workers make a living wage.

This Is How Much A Big Mac Would Cost If The Minimum Wage Was $15

This is left-wing "logic" at its finest here. Your burger is $0.17 more, but also your fries and your drink. Guess what? The gas station owner has to raise his prices as well. Your gas prices go up. It reverberates throughout society to the point where the minimum wage worker is no further ahead. The higher gas prices cause higher food prices, which cause higher everything prices (as people need to cover the cost of their food). If raising the minimum wage solved any problems - it wouldn't have needed to be raised 8x's in my lifetime.