All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/21/2012 2:09 PM
Posted by bistiza on 11/21/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):
$450 a week is the max unemployment in California. That's not enough for most people to live on long term. It's barely enough to survive on short term.

That's the equivalent of $11.25 per hour working a full time 40 hour work week. There are plenty of people who work full time hours for less than that, and they manage to survive.

Unless the cost of living where you are in California is substantially higher than in many other areas of the country, I would suggest you could survive on that income. You wouldn't be well off by any means, but you could survive.
The first year I went to college, I worked around 35 hours a week for $7.50 an hour.    Had my own shithole and a car.   My weekly take home was usually about $200.   Somehow it worked.
I find myself agreeing with MikeT23 for once. It works if you make it work (and can put up with being somewhat uncomfortable for a while).

Still, I do agree with bad_luck for the most part. People who have never had to survive on $450 per week or less for their entire month's bills may not understand how difficult that can be for the people who do it all the time. I know because I have a good understanding of the economics of it, what little money that actually represents, and because I've talked to people who have those low paying jobs. It's not easy, and most of them probably work harder than a great deal of the people who make more money than they do.



You had to be making $4,000 a month in the prior quarter to qualify for the top rate. If you make, say $8 an hour, and get laid off, you're looking at a benefit of about $150 a week.

www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de1101bt5.pdf

11/21/2012 2:37 PM
If you're making $8 an hour, you're not living large to start with but I guarantee there are expenses that aren't necessities. 

Everyone doesn't have to eat meat at every meal or have cable. 
11/21/2012 2:55 PM
$600 a month isn't a long term solution. The point is that people aren't cashing in on the government and living the sweet life (well, not poor people anyway, cough big oil, cough, corn farmers, cough etc., etc.). 
11/21/2012 2:59 PM
Life isn't a long-term guarantee. 

As has been mentioned MANY times, one can find a "comfort zone" and live there without worry for a VERY LONG TIME.

11/21/2012 3:09 PM
If you're making $8 an hour, you're not living large to start with but I guarantee there are expenses that aren't necessities.  Everyone doesn't have to eat meat at every meal or have cable.

No, everyone doesn't need to eat meat at every meal. However, they do need to be able to have some form of proper nutrition so they can live their lives.

No, everyone doesn't need to have cable. However, they do need a variety of utilities and others services to live their lives.

In both of these cases, people often don't have the money to afford even what they absolutely need.
As has been mentioned MANY times, one can find a "comfort zone" and live there without worry for a VERY LONG TIME.
I'd honestly like to see you make an attempt to find a "comfort zone" and remain there "for a very long time" if you were limited to an income of $600 per month.

In fact, I think that would be a great idea for a reality TV show: Take people who are rich, show their lavish lifestyles, and then give them $600 (or some other low amount) to live on each month and see if they can do it. It would be fun to watch them struggle and whine and cry about their situation as they learn what life is like for other people who aren't rich.

11/21/2012 3:10 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/21/2012 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 11/21/2012 8:39:00 AM (view original):
The woman had the skills, she was simply unable to do some jobs because of her disability. She had skills necessary to hold a middle class job, but the disability cost her the ability to do that job. Then her skills only let her do jobs which made $1,200 per month at best, which as I explained was actually a net loss for her so she didn't end up taking it.

The problem isn't that she didn't have any marketable skills - the problem is that there weren't any jobs available which paid enough to be worth taking. This all goes back to the state of the economy and the fact that there aren't as many good paying jobs.

The system isn't the problem - the lack of good jobs is the problem.

Define "good jobs".

Then tell me what Obama has done to either (a) create jobs like that, or (b) train people for jobs like that.

So far, he's just thrown money at people that aren't working.
Still no response to WTF our president is doing to remedy the situation....

Or has done for the last four ******* years....
11/22/2012 6:54 AM
he temporarily created shovel ready jobs to buy union votes. infrastructure bill.
11/23/2012 8:41 AM
In order to create full time jobs with family sustainable wages and benefits, the president (and others because he sure can't do it alone) has to give incentives to businesses to create those positions. One way those positions are created is by turning a part time position or one with lower pay into a full time position with better pay. If businesses have incentives to pay people properly and to hire full time rather than part time, that is what they will do.

Unfortunately, Obamacare gives employers every incentive in the world to do the opposite and effectively **** over employees. It's one of the downsides of a plan with good intentions but questionable execution. Most businesses care not only about staying in business (as they should) and making a small profit (as they should) but about maximizing that profit as much as possible (perhaps a bit greedy). So when they are told they'll have to give insurance benefits to people who are over 30 hours per week, they'll cut everyone to under 30 hours per week, and they'll blame the law (Obamacare) for it, which is only a half truth at best.

The real truth is these business owners don't really care about their employees or else they would employ less people overall but make those they do employ full time with benefits and decent wages. Sure less people overall have jobs, but the jobs you eliminate are the part time jobs which really don't sustain anyone, and there will always be those types of jobs in some fields anyway. The jobs you do provide actually mean something when people don't have to work two jobs and have zero benefits.

This in turn would stimulate consumer spending and therefore the economy, because the middle class drives consumer spending, and this would increase those with middle class incomes. The wealthy invest their money rather than spending, and there aren't as many wealthy individuals, so they don't drive consumer spending. The poor simply don't have the money to spend in order to drive consumer spending.

The solution is to give businesses strong incentives to create full time jobs with benefits and family sustaining wages in order to increase the number of people who have money to spend (not poor) and are actually willing to spend it (not wealthy).

11/23/2012 9:04 AM
too long. stfu
11/23/2012 9:08 AM
Hey!!  That's my line.   Except you also need to call him a dumbass.

Too long.  STFU, dumbass.


Feel free to copy/paste that after any bis post.
11/23/2012 9:49 AM
Holy ****!  

Bis actually makes a point that I agree with (Obamacare = good intentions, poor implementation), but then ***** the bed with the following logic:

Paraphrased:

1)  Businesses should employ less people, but make the ones who are employed fill-time with benefits and decent wages.
2)  Because of this, less people will have jobs.
3)  Because of this, consumer spending would be stimulated, which in turn stimulates the economy.

So less people having jobs is good for the economy.

You can't make this stuff up.
11/23/2012 9:58 AM

Since I have him blocked, let's play a game.  You tell me how close I am.

Employed people with decent wages = More people with disposable income(whereas more employed people making less = less disposable income)
Freshly unemployed will get unemployment+food stamps in order to get by.
Taxes can be raised to fund the entitlement programs because the employed people will be making more. 

11/23/2012 10:28 AM
#1 - is dead-on.

#2 - he didn't talk about what happens to all the extra unemployed people.  Guess they're not important.

#3 - no talk about taxes or entitlements.
11/23/2012 10:36 AM
Well, goddammit, all these employed people with higher wages will be able to afford to pay more taxes so it stands to reason that they'l be able to support the unemployed better. 
11/23/2012 11:16 AM
Hey!!  That's my line.   Except you also need to call him a dumbass.

I'm sure anyone with half a mind is well aware that was you all along. Nice try, though.
Bis actually makes a point that I agree with (Obamacare = good intentions, poor implementation)

I'm glad to see you can think logically at least some of the time.
So less people having jobs is good for the economy.

Now you're not using any logic, because that's NOT what I said. You didn't follow it properly at all.

What I said in a nutshell is this: Consumer spending stimulates the economy. Consumer spending is driven by the middle class. So to stimulate the economy, you need to have more people in the middle class. That happens when there are more middle class jobs available, so businesses should be given incentives to create more of those jobs.

A possible unfortunate side effect of this is that businesses employing more full time workers would then employ less workers overall (as a full time worker could get more done than a part time worker, obviously, so you need less workers overall). The negative effects of this are mitigated because there will always be businesses (and even entire industries) who must rely on at least some part time workers, so there will still be part time jobs for most of these people.

Never did I equate less people with jobs as helping the economy. Not once. That's a conclusion you jumped to because you evidently didn't fully understand what was being discussed.
he didn't talk about what happens to all the extra unemployed people.  Guess they're not important.

Actually, I DID talk about them. I said they would be able to find other part time jobs because of the need for some businesses (and even industries) to rely on part time employees, just as I repeated for you above and am doing again now.

If you're going to argue with someone, you really should make certain you read and understand what they're saying before making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.