Quote:
Originally Posted by slip
That brought a tear to my eye...
I love the Job Creators.
|
I'm not playing on sympathies. I'm stating facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13
Yeah, "self-tought on internet" is just amazing CV dressing.
|
No. But you can educate yourself enough to become an expert on certain subjects. You can learn about investing/finance and do very well for yourself. You can learn about a certain technical field and pass the required certification. You can learn about a certain (low investment) business. There are also plenty of very affordable, accessible part time degree programs for people. Is it likely you will become fabulously wealthy? No. But you should be able to make enough to get by on a low budget. There is
no excuse for not being able to support yourself if you are of able body and sound mind.
Quote:
|
It completely competes with "internship at my dads multimillion dollar corporation" and "full ride through Yale business school".
|
Wait, so you are saying that that people who inherit money have an advantage? Groundbreaking!! But really, you are talking about a very small percentage of individuals who are born "set". And even then, they still generally become very intelligent, dedicated individuals with highly marketable skills and provide a lot of value. But regardless, I have a question for you (and others):
People with families work their entire lives to give their ancestors the best possible life and the greatest opportunity for success. Do you think the role of the federal government should be to increasingly handicap those who were born with an advantage to make it "fair" for those who's parents didn't prepare them well? Is it the role of the federal government to adjust for parental success or failure?
Quote:
|
It's no wonder that the best "self-made man" the GOP has trotted out this election season is a functionally retarded pizza man.
|
Why is it no wonder? Most good business men know the risks of getting into politics far outway the benefits. Though, maybe you should try to hide your bias a bit (Democrats havent had a great record with "self made" men).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo
i am moving this discussion from another thread because it was basically out of place there (i started the derail).
anyway, i reject your ideas here. the idea that minimum wage hikes are associated with job losses is largely a fallacy. people screech about this every time there's discussion of raising the federal minimum wage, and every time it happens almost nobody loses their job. that's because people working below the new minimum wage are largely indispensable. mcdonald's can't just cut their staff in half; lines would become very long, food wouldn't be "fast" and nobody would go there any more. what would happen is that big corporations couldn't continue lining their pockets with cash and they'd have to reduce upper management/executive salaries, which have become wildly out of line with lower skilled jobs in the USA, and wildly out of line with executive compensation elsewhere around the world.
|
First of all – the minimum wage was recently increased more than 10%. Periodic wage increases to adjust for inflation are fine. But significant increases in the real minimum wage could have devastating effects on the employment market.
Large companies like McDonald’s will very likely not fire people. They likeliest scenario is that they will look to offset this increase in costs with increases in revenue. This would probably mean price increases / the introduction of new products / expansion / freezing salaries of their middle class employees. But probably price increases. Companies like McDonalds will maintain their profit margin independent of wage rates – they’ll find a way to make their buck in the long run– and there will be another class of victims because of it.
Smaller companies will probably just increase their illegal hires.
Quote:
|
corporations love the american consumer markets. corporations do not love the american labor markets, because they can build stuff for cheaper overseas, ship it to the US where people will buy it. this just increases their profits.
|
What’s wrong with outsourcing? It creates jobs and improves lives elsewhere. If it’s a more efficient allocation of resources, than as people who live in a world with constrained resources, should be in favor of that. But probably the best thing is that it allows companies to keep their profits low.
Quote:
|
why, with a minimum wage that is more than double that of the USA, does australia not have an astronomical unemployment rate? in fact, our unemployment rate is about half that of the USA, and our federal budget is balanced or very close to it. the reason is that companies can afford to pay more. mcdonald's exists and thrives in australia despite having to pay their employees $15/hour.
|
Because they charge a bunch more? Cost of living in the US is significantly lower (about 35%) than in Australia.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...=United+States
Combo in Australia is $2 more.
Quote:
|
yes, prices are higher. but here's another benefit of paying unskilled workers more money: they can afford to buy more stuff. so the supermarket that pays their employees $15/hour to stock shelves - yes, they're paying more than they would have to in the US, but they also have more money coming in because those employees they're paying more are able to buy more groceries.
|
So what you are saying is that the increase in min wage leads to a net zero change? Oh yea, except for that little thing called inflation.
Quote:
|
under president sinisalo, the minimum wage in america will be raised to a level such that each person with a full time job will be earning, at a minimum, more than the defined poverty level for a family of four. there's your incentive to work - if you have a full time job, you have a livable wage and can afford to do some things you want to do.
|
You’ve already answered what is wrong here. 1.) You increase the min wage
2.) Prices rise
3.) Poverty level increases
4.) People drop back below the poverty level. You now have people living below the poverty level that can’t survive participate in your Utopia.
5.) Inflation
Your Utopia where everyone gets to have fun and not be bored is just not possible because people are not the same. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are harder workers. And those that are neither and make very little money should not be compensated because they have to live a boring life. They should be able to support themselves. They can work 60 hour weeks at min wage and live just fine. That’s close to 1500/month after taxes. Plenty to live off of. I’ve lived off of much less. Having a family is not a right. Being able to afford drinks at the bar is not a right. Going to movies is not a right. You do not have a right to happiness, only a right to pursue it.
Because you proposed the situation, if I were president I would lead with these guidelines:
1.) Don't have kids you can't afford
2.) Don't buy things you can't afford
3.) Don't do things you can't afford
4.) Don't live in places you can't afford
5.) Don't expect strangers to subsidize you for your "boredom"
6.) Get passionate about being the best at your (possibly trivial) job
7.) Take credit for your successes while taking responsibility for your failures
8.) Find a partner that makes you happy and protect them
9.) Be good to your friends, loved ones, and the truly less fortunate
10.) Save
And give some responsibility back to the individual.
Quote:
|
maybe not a great life, but a decent one. because these people are the REAL engine that drives capitalism. not the "job creators," but rather a large and thriving middle class. people who create demand for products and services. that, to me, is what the whole OWS movement is about. not fairness, but reducing inequality between the people who work hard and make very little money, and the people who work hard and make huge amounts of money.
|
OWS was originally about corruption. Its too bad it got hijacked by a bunch of selfish, materialistic hippies who think they have a right to other people’s money.
Quote:
|
i am for people doing whatever they want to do in life, provided that they serve a role in society. if someone wants to be a social worker, that's a useful role and they should not be forced to leave that job because they can't make enough money. if someone wants to work at mcdonald's for 40 years, they should be able to do that and afford to live without government assistance.
|
Haha what a load of crock. If people lived by this rule, we’d have a bunch of artists and musicians and no actual manual workers. Who’s going to farm for us? Who’s going to manufacture goods? This may be the single most ridiculous idea I have ever heard on these boards, bar none.
People who choose to do what they love make that decision knowing full well that they will never be rich. But they sacrifice that extra pay for happiness on the job. Most people are compensated more for more undesirable jobs so they can be spend their time doing things that make them happy outside of work. If you really want to be a social worker you should do it with the understanding that you may have to have roommates till your 30 and find cheaper ways to have fun (or marry a rich person).
Quote:
|
i am involved with special olympics. some of the people i coach will never be able to have a job that is more complex than wrapping silverware or working in the back at mcdonald's, or collecting shopping carts from the walmart parking lot. if they're working full time, they should make a livable wage.
|
First of all – that’s real cool that you volunteer with the special Olympics. Gives you some perspective, huh? (I tutored special needs kids for a bit). I agree that seriously handicapped people need to be taken care of. Reference my statement above “able body and sound mind”. If you don’t have both, then that’s obviously preventing you from earning a decent wage. Secondly – 7.25 hr is a livable wage, as I mentioned earlier.
Quote:
|
i think what bums me out is that you seem to be a reasonably bright guy who worked hard to get where he is. it would be easier to take your opinions if you were a moron who was just spouting off boilerplate GOP talking points (see: AP). but you can think independently and critically, and still believe that a lot of america is happy to be living off the government and barely scraping by. such is life, i guess.
|
I don’t believe people are at all happy to be living off the government. In their current state, they are probably miserable. They probably have low self esteem. Though there does exist a growing class of apathetic people who receive assistance and just simply don’t care. The entitlement mentality has changed over the past 30 years.
I have a good friend who has been working in DSS for 30 some odd years. She is a very liberal individual, but she actually brought up the point to me that people used to come to her with shame. People now come to her and think nothing of it. I thought it was an interesting insight from a person who has been on the front lines for years.
I would say the biggest problem facing our lower class is not the fact that they make very little money, but rather that our society is no longer as critical of the decisions/actions that led to their current impoverished state. Rather now, we are almost apologetic. We’ve decided that people make most of these bad decisions because society forced them to. And while I actually agree that society has an enormous effect on the individual, I prefer not to allow people the excuse, because that will only increase the epidemic (and has already done so IMO). We’ve sugar-coated everything to such insane levels – there is a limited realization of consequences for poor decisions because of this. Muting consequences is denying reality. And when you deny an individual reality, their entire value system shifts.
