Paid time off for me, no paid time off for you.

[Ray From Cleveland]

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

I live in the KC metro and even the gas stations start out pay at between 10 & 11.

ANYONE working for minimum wage is an idiot and has no one to blame but themselves.

A quick search notes that an average 1 bedroom apt rents for $742 a month. So considering taxes working for $10 an hour, two weeks pay won't even cover rent.

Which illustrates the real problem. Younger people today feel no need to work over 40 hours a week.

Lol....because gas stations regularly offer overtime.

Then work a different job on the weekends. When I was younger, if I didn't work six days a week, I always had another job.

 

[Andylusion]

There is nothing irrational or extreme. You not knowing the reasons behind price changes, does not mean there is no rational to it.

You being ignorant, does not mean everyone else must be irrational, since you don't know the reason for their actions.

As far as complaining that the retired who saved money, are being crushed.... I find your comment ironic, since you yourself are the one supporting crushing the retired.

Do you know where most 401Ks and IRAs, pension funds, and annuities, are all invested in? Stocks. Which you just complained that shareholders should make do with less....

So while you are sitting here complaining that retired people who saved are being crushed, you turn right around and advocate they make do with less.

It's all weighted to stocks. That should NOT be the case. It should be balanced. Now the markets are wanting to steal from them with negative rates. Look at what the markets are doing?

You can't blame people for wanting nothing to do with them.

It's funny how taxation is theft but negative rates won't be.

For most people, taxes are not optional. Business and investment are. When you invest, you understand you can make some money, make a lot of money, and lose money too. Neither is guaranteed. If you don't want to take that risk, then you simply go to work every morning and hope to make enough to retire on.

Some people want more. Some people dream of working for themselves, retiring early, and yes, perhaps become very wealthy, but that takes risk. The larger the risk, the likely larger payout if you succeed.

Going to work is not a risk. Your job was created by others who took that risk so you could have that job. I took a risk by being invested in that market, and it's failing lately. Not a problem because I have faith in the system, and it will recover once again. I took a risk by land investment, and it's pretty stable right now. It doesn't mean it can't fail, but again, that's what investments are all about.

We just had a coal miner that went to work the other day and was killed. Screw your "no risk".

Tell his family that. I imagine you'll find yourself picking your teeth off the ground.

We are talking about investments, and you went from investments, to work place accidents.

No, I was taking about the needs of employers being met before the needs of shareholders being met.

Well shareholders are the owners of the company. If their needs are not met, then as owner of the company, they can replace the management.

Again... this is like you renting your property to me, and then me trying to dictate that you shouldn't be paid as much for rent, because my needs should trump your needs as owner.

Well that's ridiculous, and you would never accept that logic, if you owned the property. And you are lying if you claim otherwise.

 

[Andylusion]

Not everyone. I try to find common ground and compromises. Not build, the world to my views only.

Compromises is an equitable system. What I am calling for.

by bitching people are not doing things YOUR way and shoving strawmen on me to argue against?

hardly.

If we were doing my thing the markets would collapse. I would make them live up to their "capitalistic standards" and if they did that they would collapse.

What are you smoking? How would you change anything, so that the markets would collapse by living up to capitalist standards? How?

It wouldn't get "bailed out". There is no bailing out in capitalism.

Sure, I agree with that.

That wouldn't cause the markets to collapse.

Lehman Brothers was not bailed out. Life went on. Estonia didn't bail out there banks in the past, and life went on.
Iceland didn't bail out their banks either. Life went on.

I'm all for the complete and total elimination of all bailouts entirely. The markets will not collapse. In fact, what we saw in both Estonia and Iceland, is that the markets do even better under a pure capitalist system.

And the reason is pretty clear. Badly performing parts of the economy, die off, and are replaced with productive actors. Naturally the economy will do better with less bad performers, and more good performers.

This is why we need to drastically reduce the size and scope of government. Government inherently causes only damage. The bailouts are not a benefit to the market, or the economy. Only a hindrance.

 

[Andylusion]

There is nothing irrational or extreme. You not knowing the reasons behind price changes, does not mean there is no rational to it.

You being ignorant, does not mean everyone else must be irrational, since you don't know the reason for their actions.

As far as complaining that the retired who saved money, are being crushed.... I find your comment ironic, since you yourself are the one supporting crushing the retired.

Do you know where most 401Ks and IRAs, pension funds, and annuities, are all invested in? Stocks. Which you just complained that shareholders should make do with less....

So while you are sitting here complaining that retired people who saved are being crushed, you turn right around and advocate they make do with less.

It's all weighted to stocks. That should NOT be the case. It should be balanced. Now the markets are wanting to steal from them with negative rates. Look at what the markets are doing?

You can't blame people for wanting nothing to do with them.

It's funny how taxation is theft but negative rates won't be.

You are speaking incoherently.

What do you mean the markets are 'stealing from them'? How does a stock, steal from you? As long as the company keeps paying dividends, then you are not losing anything.

Additionally, negative interest rates, just means you should be even more in favor of companies paying dividends to shareholders, and encouraging more people to invest in stocks.

That's the whole point but you know that. I have no desire to chase your feigned ignorance.

Well I proved you wrong. So, you are the one in ignorance. You claimed interest rates were negative.

I wish I didn't have to deal with so much dishonesty. I never said rates are negative. I said the markets want negative rates. Trump called for negative rates.

Why would the market want negative rates? Rich people want a return on their savings too.

I wish I didn't have to deal with so much dishonesty too.

I don't care "what trump called for". Have you learned nothing all these years? Trump says all kinds of stuff. Pay less attention to what he says, and more to what he does.

The irony is, a bunch of people on here still claim that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, and if that's true, why does it matter what Trump says anyway?

 

[Andylusion]

GOP LAWMAKER WHO VOTED AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE IN FLORIDA TAKES PAID LEAVE FROM CONGRESS

Gaetz Voted Against Florida Paid Sick Leave. He’s Using It in Congress.

As the article notes, he isn't even sick but he is still going to take time off, all paid for by the taxpayers.

He shouldn't have paid leave either.

Paid leave is a part of any package negotiated between employer and employee.
Congress has no business dictating someones employment package.

We live in a society. People who get sick still have to eat and have electricity. Those who get sick will get paid one way or the other, the employer or taxpayer.

I have missed MANY DAYS of work in my lifetime. Neither the government or my customers paid me anyhow.

Responsible people prepare for emergencies.

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

Along with sick leave, the minimum wage should be raised. It has not been increased since the bush boy years.

Did you ever think that if people were paid a living wage they would be able to prepare for an emergency and wouldn't need any public assistance?

Again, every single time, consistently throughout all human history, raising the minimum wage results in job loss.

You are complaining that people on $7.25 have too little money? How much will they have when they earn zero?

Moreover, we're talking about a tiny tiny fraction of the population, most of whom are living with their parents, and others who are retired, and just doing this as a side job.

If you are still earning $7.25, after you are out of high school, then something is wrong. You are not working like an adult. In fact, if you are still working at $7.25 in high school after one year, then something is wrong.

Honestly, anyone still making minimum wage after one full year, is failing at life.

When Warren Buffet was a kid, he was making hundreds of dollars, by using money he earned from a paper route, to buy pinball machines and put them into local businesses, where he earned more money.

When I was in high school, a guy in school was walking the sidewalks with a lawn mower, and made almost $15 an hour, and was back when the minimum wage was $4.25.

If you are making minimum wage, the problem isn't your employer. It's you. Stop being lazing, and get your butt doing something productive.

 

[Andylusion]

Last fall I missed a little over a week with a terrible flu.
Then later in the same month the typical slow season kicked in.
In total I typically miss 3 to 6 weeks of work EVERY WINTER and somehow I still manage WITHOUT seeking government money.

It's called preparing for bad times. Saving money. Being responsible.

If I had to pay my employees for missed work that cost would be passed on to my customers in the form of higher bids.

You people use circular logic.

The government isn't paying the sick leave.

Employers will.

You actually believe that tax dollars pay wages for employers in our nation.

Wow.

The prior poster said:

If I had to pay my employees for missed work that cost would be passed on to my customers in the form of higher bids.

How about you read what he posted, instead of making up things.

 

[Andylusion]

He shouldn't have paid leave either.

Paid leave is a part of any package negotiated between employer and employee.
Congress has no business dictating someones employment package.

We live in a society. People who get sick still have to eat and have electricity. Those who get sick will get paid one way or the other, the employer or taxpayer.

I have missed MANY DAYS of work in my lifetime. Neither the government or my customers paid me anyhow.

Responsible people prepare for emergencies.

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

Along with sick leave, the minimum wage should be raised. It has not been increased since the bush boy years.

Did you ever think that if people were paid a living wage they would be able to prepare for an emergency and wouldn't need any public assistance?

A "living wage" WOULD be public assistance if the job isn't worth that much, because if the employer loses money on it, the job disappears, unless the taxpayer makes up the difference.

The taxpayer does make up the difference in the many public assistance programs. They are corporate socialism.

Again... if the job isn't worth the cost of the benefits, then the job will cease to exist.

How much will the taxpayer make up the difference, if there is no job at all?

Dumb argument. If you chose to give out benefit from government, that's on you, not the corporations.

Whether you give out benefits or not, it's not the corporations duty to do anything.

They are a business. If they can't make money providing jobs, then they don't provide jobs.

We, the people who create jobs, are not obligated to you. We didn't invest our money, for your benefit. If I can't reap a return on my investment, then I'll just blow the money on my own desires, and provide zero jobs.

And the irony is, you yourself would never invest and create jobs if it didn't benefit you to do so. So your entire argument is utter hypocrisy.

 

[Andylusion]

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

I live in the KC metro and even the gas stations start out pay at between 10 & 11.

ANYONE working for minimum wage is an idiot and has no one to blame but themselves.

A quick search notes that an average 1 bedroom apt rents for $742 a month. So considering taxes working for $10 an hour, two weeks pay won't even cover rent.

This is not a difficult concept....

If you are trying to live on your own....... then you don't work at a gas station. You get a job that pays more.

Anyone can get a job that pays more. Anyone can. ANYONE. Get a second job. I worked 3 jobs when I was younger.

The choices is only whether you are willing to put in the work.

Additionally, looking up KC cheap apartments, I found a Studio for $315, and a 1 bed for $406.

However, even in the mythical $742 rent, here's a thought... roommates. I did roommates. I knew a group of guys that had 4 people in a rented house.

This is life. You can't just get everything you want. If all could get what we want, we'd all have houses on private beaches.

If you want something, you have to work for it. If you want good health care, get a good job and buy a good policies. If you want a better place to live, earn the money and pay for it.

The solution to live, isn't sitting around demanding other people make your life better. It never works. It didn't in Venezuela, not in Cuba, not in North Korea, not in the Soviet Union, not in Communist era China, and it won't work in the US today.

That's not how it is in Denmark, Sweden, or any other Euro place. People that are poor there, live poor, and people who earn tons of money, live rich.

Sitting around waiting on government to mandate their lives get better, will not end up better off. If that worked, then why hasn't it since LBJ's war on poverty?

 

[Andylusion]

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

I live in the KC metro and even the gas stations start out pay at between 10 & 11.

ANYONE working for minimum wage is an idiot and has no one to blame but themselves.

A quick search notes that an average 1 bedroom apt rents for $742 a month. So considering taxes working for $10 an hour, two weeks pay won't even cover rent.

Which illustrates the real problem. Younger people today feel no need to work over 40 hours a week.

Lol....because gas stations regularly offer overtime.

Get... a better... job.

 

[Dragonlady]

So here's the problem with this.

Everyone on the left, needs to grasp that every benefit they get from the company, has to come out of their own pay check.

Employers always base how much they pay, on how much it costs them to employ you. This is known as "total cost of employment".

Let us take a mythical example... Say a company decides they need to have someone work in the warehouse. They have a budget set aside, of roughly $30,000 for the position.

Does that mean they can pay someone $30,000 to work in their warehouse?

Well in a completely free-market situation, yes, but in the current situation no.

Because for example, the employer must pay ~7.6% in employer side taxes for that employee. That's over $2,300 roughly, on a $30,000.

So where does that money come from? Well it comes out of the $30,000 set aside for the position. The company does not have money that magically falls from the sky to pay taxes with. It has to come out of the money set aside for the position, and obviously you can't pay both the employee, and the government with the same dollar.

So that means to pay out several thousand in taxes, I have to pay several thousand less to the employee.

$30,000 will end up being $27,700, with the money the employee would have earned, going to the government instead.

The exact same thing is true of all benefits. All the money that goes for health insurance, comes from employees in lower wages.

And the same is true of paid sick-leave. If you want a week of getting paid to not be at work, that comes out of your own pay, in lower wages.

View attachment 312841

Now some people think that's worth it. And I respect that opinion.

But you need to grasp that the people who will be most affected by make this law, will be the people who are the poorest. The poorest people, will end up with lower wages, to pay for more sick pay.

Do you want the poorest people earning less money, but having some PTO if they are sick? Or would you rather they earn more, and a very few not having PTO?

Because that's the choice you have. There is no, just get free stuff, and "the rich" pay for it. That's not reality.

So I take a little less so that my co-worker doesn't lose his house when he gets sick.

I'm OK with that.

And that is a valid position to take.

Keep in mind, there is one other aspect you need to know about.

In the case of people that are bumping up against the minimum wage, then the company simply can't afford to pay more money for low-value work. The result is those people will end up losing hours. They'll be put on part time, or end up losing their jobs entirely.

You mention people losing their house, but the reality is most people that have a house, are in higher-value work, and likely already have PTO.

The people working the low-wage jobs that sometimes don't have PTO... are likely not buying a house anyway.

However, I think we also need to realize that if you accept this position, then you can never again complain that wages are not rising as fast as they did in the past.

You are diverting money away from wages, in exchange for benefits. That's it the position you have chosen, so yeah, wages are not going to rise as fast as in the past, and you can't complain about that anymore.

You are accepting that as policy.

I will note, you only say that the employers must give up something, but never mention the shareholders giving up something.

So you will continue to pay more in taxes for welfare so shareholders can be happy.

Well that's true, because the shareholders are simply... not going to give up something.

I'm a shareholder myself. I own stock in many companies.

I can promise you, that once a year, I review my investments. If I see that my investments are not paying off, then I sell them off, and buy investments that do pay off.

I'm sure there are professional investors who check every month, and review what is paying off, and what is not. Companies that fail to payout to investors (shareholders), will end up losing investments, or having the shareholders vote out management, and replacing them with people who do the job.

I think this is another one of those areas, where people think "everyone else should do... what I would never do".

Because you would never do that. You would never invest thousands of dollars, and not get a good return on your investment. Honestly, if I didn't get a good return, I could move my money over seas. I already have open investments in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (yes, which is now china).

Why would I cut my ROI on investments, when I have tens of thousands in investments? If you are going to cut that down, I would just put my money in CDs, and not take the risk of stock investments. There has to be a pay off, worth the risk of the investment.

The world should not revolve around "shareholders". A company can be profitable but still get crushed because they are not "profitable" enough.

People shouldn't have to apply for welfare because 8% isn't enough for shareholders.

In fact, the shareholders should be paid LAST. Workers, the people who are actualy producting the products, and hence the profits, should be paid FIRST.

 

[Andylusion]

Well of course.

Yet you didn't mention it. So I had to do so.

We are woefully unprepared on every level. We're going into a recession with rates at zero, huge deficits, and poor leadership. Not good.

Leadership doesn't matter. Honestly, it does not matter.

If you refuse to work hard, or move up the income ladder, or do what it takes to improve yourself.... no amount of leadership is going to fix you.

This is like black people and Obama. I still remember that lady in 2008, saying she wasn't going to worry about anything anymore, because.... Obama.

Well, look where we are today. Are black people better off, or worse off in 2016, than in 2008? Clearly, by every possible measure, they are worse off. By any measure.

And you would consider Obama (I presume) to have been better leader than Trump. Yet we have more racial tension, more black people being murdered, Baltimore, Chicago and so on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...22363c-052b-11e5-bc72-f3e16bf50bb6_story.html

“What was the point?” asked Motley, 23, a grocery store clerk. “We made history, but I don’t see change.”
​

You want to know why he doesn't see change? Still working at a grocery store. Get a skill... move up.

Waiting around for some 'leader' to mandate improvement in his life, left him at a grocery store.

The solution has to do with *YOU*. The individual must move up. Not some policy, or law enacted by congress, which has never worked. In 2010, they were calling for the $15/hour minimum wage. Less than one year of going from $5.25 to $7.25, resulting in a massive recession, they were already demanding an even larger increase in the minimum wage.

That system never works. Never has. Never will. Greece had a minimum wage indexed to inflation, and the result was so much inflation, that the entire country implode so badly, they had to lower the minimum wage.

The whole point of an entry level job, is to get you learn the skills you need to move up. That is the only reason any employer every hires a new employee with zero skills, is because they can pay a skill-less person, less money. If they can't pay them less, then they won't hire them at all. That will only make it more difficult for people to get better jobs.

 

[pknopp]

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

I live in the KC metro and even the gas stations start out pay at between 10 & 11.

ANYONE working for minimum wage is an idiot and has no one to blame but themselves.

A quick search notes that an average 1 bedroom apt rents for $742 a month. So considering taxes working for $10 an hour, two weeks pay won't even cover rent.

Which illustrates the real problem. Younger people today feel no need to work over 40 hours a week.

Lol....because gas stations regularly offer overtime.

Then work a different job on the weekends. When I was younger, if I didn't work six days a week, I always had another job.

No you didn't.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I live in the KC metro and even the gas stations start out pay at between 10 & 11.

ANYONE working for minimum wage is an idiot and has no one to blame but themselves.

A quick search notes that an average 1 bedroom apt rents for $742 a month. So considering taxes working for $10 an hour, two weeks pay won't even cover rent.

Which illustrates the real problem. Younger people today feel no need to work over 40 hours a week.

Lol....because gas stations regularly offer overtime.

Then work a different job on the weekends. When I was younger, if I didn't work six days a week, I always had another job.

No you didn't.

Pointless response. You have no idea what he did or does.

Be an idiot somewhere else

 

[pknopp]

It's all weighted to stocks. That should NOT be the case. It should be balanced. Now the markets are wanting to steal from them with negative rates. Look at what the markets are doing?

You can't blame people for wanting nothing to do with them.

It's funny how taxation is theft but negative rates won't be.

For most people, taxes are not optional. Business and investment are. When you invest, you understand you can make some money, make a lot of money, and lose money too. Neither is guaranteed. If you don't want to take that risk, then you simply go to work every morning and hope to make enough to retire on.

Some people want more. Some people dream of working for themselves, retiring early, and yes, perhaps become very wealthy, but that takes risk. The larger the risk, the likely larger payout if you succeed.

Going to work is not a risk. Your job was created by others who took that risk so you could have that job. I took a risk by being invested in that market, and it's failing lately. Not a problem because I have faith in the system, and it will recover once again. I took a risk by land investment, and it's pretty stable right now. It doesn't mean it can't fail, but again, that's what investments are all about.

We just had a coal miner that went to work the other day and was killed. Screw your "no risk".

Tell his family that. I imagine you'll find yourself picking your teeth off the ground.

We are talking about investments, and you went from investments, to work place accidents.

No, I was taking about the needs of employers being met before the needs of shareholders being met.

Well shareholders are the owners of the company. If their needs are not met, then as owner of the company, they can replace the management.

Again... this is like you renting your property to me, and then me trying to dictate that you shouldn't be paid as much for rent, because my needs should trump your needs as owner.

Well that's ridiculous, and you would never accept that logic, if you owned the property. And you are lying if you claim otherwise.

We will most likely be providing huge socialist bail outs to these "owners" again. Odd that so many find that acceptable but get all upset when others want to do the same with those not able to access affordable health care. Really ironic right now also.

 

[pknopp]

Compromises is an equitable system. What I am calling for.

by bitching people are not doing things YOUR way and shoving strawmen on me to argue against?

hardly.

If we were doing my thing the markets would collapse. I would make them live up to their "capitalistic standards" and if they did that they would collapse.

What are you smoking? How would you change anything, so that the markets would collapse by living up to capitalist standards? How?

It wouldn't get "bailed out". There is no bailing out in capitalism.

Sure, I agree with that.

That wouldn't cause the markets to collapse.

Lehman Brothers was not bailed out. Life went on. Estonia didn't bail out there banks in the past, and life went on.
Iceland didn't bail out their banks either. Life went on.

I'm all for the complete and total elimination of all bailouts entirely. The markets will not collapse. In fact, what we saw in both Estonia and Iceland, is that the markets do even better under a pure capitalist system.

And the reason is pretty clear. Badly performing parts of the economy, die off, and are replaced with productive actors. Naturally the economy will do better with less bad performers, and more good performers.

This is why we need to drastically reduce the size and scope of government. Government inherently causes only damage. The bailouts are not a benefit to the market, or the economy. Only a hindrance.

With Trump getting ready to do it again. There is a huge benefit to the country, world and economy for affordable health care though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lehman Brothers was not bailed out. Life went on.

For you. Lots of people lost their retirement funds. You are a republican to the core, my friend.

 

[pknopp]

It's all weighted to stocks. That should NOT be the case. It should be balanced. Now the markets are wanting to steal from them with negative rates. Look at what the markets are doing?

You can't blame people for wanting nothing to do with them.

It's funny how taxation is theft but negative rates won't be.

You are speaking incoherently.

What do you mean the markets are 'stealing from them'? How does a stock, steal from you? As long as the company keeps paying dividends, then you are not losing anything.

Additionally, negative interest rates, just means you should be even more in favor of companies paying dividends to shareholders, and encouraging more people to invest in stocks.

That's the whole point but you know that. I have no desire to chase your feigned ignorance.

Well I proved you wrong. So, you are the one in ignorance. You claimed interest rates were negative.

I wish I didn't have to deal with so much dishonesty. I never said rates are negative. I said the markets want negative rates. Trump called for negative rates.

Why would the market want negative rates? Rich people want a return on their savings too.

I wish I didn't have to deal with so much dishonesty too.

I don't care "what trump called for". Have you learned nothing all these years? Trump says all kinds of stuff. Pay less attention to what he says, and more to what he does.

The irony is, a bunch of people on here still claim that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, and if that's true, why does it matter what Trump says anyway?

Want to bet it happens? There is only one way to go from zero. Money was intended to be "FREE"?

 

[CowboyTed]

GOP LAWMAKER WHO VOTED AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE IN FLORIDA TAKES PAID LEAVE FROM CONGRESS

Gaetz Voted Against Florida Paid Sick Leave. He’s Using It in Congress.

As the article notes, he isn't even sick but he is still going to take time off, all paid for by the taxpayers.

He shouldn't have paid leave either.

Paid leave is a part of any package negotiated between employer and employee.
Congress has no business dictating someones employment package.

So I am allowed to put my employees in harms way as long as they signed something in the there contract...

160m in the labour force...

So you would like to kill 24,000 people a year by rolling back Health and Safety law?

 

[pknopp]

We live in a society. People who get sick still have to eat and have electricity. Those who get sick will get paid one way or the other, the employer or taxpayer.

I have missed MANY DAYS of work in my lifetime. Neither the government or my customers paid me anyhow.

Responsible people prepare for emergencies.

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

Along with sick leave, the minimum wage should be raised. It has not been increased since the bush boy years.

Did you ever think that if people were paid a living wage they would be able to prepare for an emergency and wouldn't need any public assistance?

A "living wage" WOULD be public assistance if the job isn't worth that much, because if the employer loses money on it, the job disappears, unless the taxpayer makes up the difference.

The taxpayer does make up the difference in the many public assistance programs. They are corporate socialism.

Again... if the job isn't worth the cost of the benefits, then the job will cease to exist.

How much will the taxpayer make up the difference, if there is no job at all?

Dumb argument. If you chose to give out benefit from government, that's on you, not the corporations.

Whether you give out benefits or not, it's not the corporations duty to do anything.

They are a business. If they can't make money providing jobs, then they don't provide jobs.

We, the people who create jobs, are not obligated to you. We didn't invest our money, for your benefit. If I can't reap a return on my investment, then I'll just blow the money on my own desires, and provide zero jobs.

And the irony is, you yourself would never invest and create jobs if it didn't benefit you to do so. So your entire argument is utter hypocrisy.

Wal-Mart loves food stamps. No one is creating the trillions the Fed simply throws at the markets.

 

[pknopp]

How can a person prepare for an emergency when they are paid 7.25 an hour?

Be realistic here.

I live in the KC metro and even the gas stations start out pay at between 10 & 11.

ANYONE working for minimum wage is an idiot and has no one to blame but themselves.

A quick search notes that an average 1 bedroom apt rents for $742 a month. So considering taxes working for $10 an hour, two weeks pay won't even cover rent.

This is not a difficult concept....

If you are trying to live on your own....... then you don't work at a gas station. You get a job that pays more.

Anyone can get a job that pays more. Anyone can. ANYONE. Get a second job. I worked 3 jobs when I was younger.

No you didn't.