Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone who's rambling on about this ever had to live on minimum wage?      

You have roommates in a ****** neighborhood.  You eat chicken and rice instead of steak.   You wear what you have and not the shiny new clothes you want.   IOW, you get by with what you have and try to get better for the future.   

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

They employ high school students that live at home instead of ADULTS.  Like we did in the Bay Area in the 70's

Posted by examinerebb on 6/5/2014 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Minimum wage jobs weren't intended to be "living wages".  If you get minimum wage, you must have minimal skills.  If you want to EARN a living wage, stay in school and learn some marketable skills.

This is the point that can't be argued, so it is either ignored or battled via a straw man.  When I got out of school, I made more than minium wage (though considerably less than $15/hour) and lived in a two bedroom apartment with two other roommates, not a one bedroom apartment for $900/month.  Why?  Because I couldn't afford one yet.  It was my responsibility to get to the point where I could, not the government's responsibility to get me there under my (then) currrent circumstances.

The whole argument always essentially boils down to one side saying that everyone should have the opportunity to earn a living wage or better, and the other side saying that everyone is entitled to a living wage.  One argument sounds really nice, the other makes actual sense.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

They employ high school students that live at home instead of ADULTS.  Like we did in the Bay Area in the 70's

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

They employ high school students that live at home instead of ADULTS.  Like we did in the Bay Area in the 70's

Or they do like every business on earth.   They review their hiring practices and wage scale.

Trust me, if a business can't conduct business, they will do something so that they can or they will close up shop.

You know, free enterprise and all that bullshit.     Crazy right-wing bullshit, I know.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 6:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 6/5/2014 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Minimum wage jobs weren't intended to be "living wages".  If you get minimum wage, you must have minimal skills.  If you want to EARN a living wage, stay in school and learn some marketable skills.

This is the point that can't be argued, so it is either ignored or battled via a straw man.  When I got out of school, I made more than minium wage (though considerably less than $15/hour) and lived in a two bedroom apartment with two other roommates, not a one bedroom apartment for $900/month.  Why?  Because I couldn't afford one yet.  It was my responsibility to get to the point where I could, not the government's responsibility to get me there under my (then) currrent circumstances.

The whole argument always essentially boils down to one side saying that everyone should have the opportunity to earn a living wage or better, and the other side saying that everyone is entitled to a living wage.  One argument sounds really nice, the other makes actual sense.

The reason this argument is ignored is because the argument makes no sense. Who decided that those jobs were not "intended" to be living wage jobs?

Plenty of people are trying to get by on those jobs. What would you suggest they do differently?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

They employ high school students that live at home instead of ADULTS.  Like we did in the Bay Area in the 70's

Or they do like every business on earth.   They review their hiring practices and wage scale.

Trust me, if a business can't conduct business, they will do something so that they can or they will close up shop.

You know, free enterprise and all that bullshit.     Crazy right-wing bullshit, I know.

OK, great. And in the environment that we have now, the government allows companies to pay employees so little that the employees have to be on public assistance to survive. It's a wealth transfer from tax payers to companies that employ minimum wage workers. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone who's rambling on about this ever had to live on minimum wage?      

You have roommates in a ****** neighborhood.  You eat chicken and rice instead of steak.   You wear what you have and not the shiny new clothes you want.   IOW, you get by with what you have and try to get better for the future.   

Posted by stinenavy on 6/6/2014 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone who's rambling on about this ever had to live on minimum wage?      

You have roommates in a ****** neighborhood.  You eat chicken and rice instead of steak.   You wear what you have and not the shiny new clothes you want.   IOW, you get by with what you have and try to get better for the future.   

I agree with this. I'd like if we actually taught more practical life skills in junior high and high schools in regards to finances. Dump algebra or whatever and teach kids that racking up $10K or so in debt in 13% interest credit cards, store "rewards" cards, and car loans is a stupid ******* idea.

And every 10 minutes someone can bust through the door and scream about how they shouldn't have children until they are financially stable, and are with someone they can tolerate.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 11:49:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to see tax money go towards vocational training rather than handouts for doing nothing.  That way, rather than handing out fish, our government would actually take an active role in teaching people to fish...  and people that CHOOSE not to learn to fish can continue to make minimum wage and ***** online about it.

clean water = clean fish. regulate more! save our earth now!

Posted by examinerebb on 6/5/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

They employ high school students that live at home instead of ADULTS.  Like we did in the Bay Area in the 70's

Or they do like every business on earth.   They review their hiring practices and wage scale.

Trust me, if a business can't conduct business, they will do something so that they can or they will close up shop.

You know, free enterprise and all that bullshit.     Crazy right-wing bullshit, I know.

OK, great. And in the environment that we have now, the government allows companies to pay employees so little that the employees have to be on public assistance to survive. It's a wealth transfer from tax payers to companies that employ minimum wage workers. 

The wealth transfer occurs because the assistance doesn't create an incentive for anyone to improve their financial position.  As we've discussed earlier, and you agreed, it removes the incentive to do so, so the assistance is paid out in perpetuity.  Do something to fix the assistance system, or stop ******** about the wealth transfer from taxpayers.  Believe me when I tell you that every conservative wants every person receiving assistance to better their situation and start paying into the government coffers instead of taking from them.  Conseratives aren't the bad guys on this one - the people who blindly defend a broken, unsustainable assistance system are.

And, for the record, I'm 100% behind reforming the tax law, closing loopholes and raising the upper income tax tier.  But we need to fix the way we spend the money first.  I see absolutely no benefit in pouring more money into broken programs.

There was a time when you were rewarded for excellence.   Now you're rewarded for showing up.   

We're a Participation Trophy society.

Posted by examinerebb on 6/5/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

They employ high school students that live at home instead of ADULTS.  Like we did in the Bay Area in the 70's

Or they do like every business on earth.   They review their hiring practices and wage scale.

Trust me, if a business can't conduct business, they will do something so that they can or they will close up shop.

You know, free enterprise and all that bullshit.     Crazy right-wing bullshit, I know.

OK, great. And in the environment that we have now, the government allows companies to pay employees so little that the employees have to be on public assistance to survive. It's a wealth transfer from tax payers to companies that employ minimum wage workers. 

The wealth transfer occurs because the assistance doesn't create an incentive for anyone to improve their financial position.  As we've discussed earlier, and you agreed, it removes the incentive to do so, so the assistance is paid out in perpetuity.  Do something to fix the assistance system, or stop ******** about the wealth transfer from taxpayers.  Believe me when I tell you that every conservative wants every person receiving assistance to better their situation and start paying into the government coffers instead of taking from them.  Conseratives aren't the bad guys on this one - the people who blindly defend a broken, unsustainable assistance system are.

And, for the record, I'm 100% behind reforming the tax law, closing loopholes and raising the upper income tax tier.  But we need to fix the way we spend the money first.  I see absolutely no benefit in pouring more money into broken programs.