Do you believe in a living wage?

Indeed.

 

SS is set to keep people alive. Anyone who thinks that SS-only is where they want to spend their days is just plain not awake.

We have to keep constant watch on what politicians intend for the poor. They are NOT going to be there unless we demand that they are.

Remember that this administration has several proposals on how to reduce support for those at the bottom.

Moving Medicare to a voucher system is the first step necessary to start removing support for health care, for just one example. The reason is that as costs rise, Medicare will continue to provide the defined level of support, while a voucher will become less and less useful as health care costs rise, and it would require explicit action by congress and a presidential signature to change to meet those rising costs.

 

The path to a real sustainable living wage is not through government wage mandate, it is through supply and demand in the labor commodity. One of the first steps to increasing demand for labor, which will increase wages, is to limit legal employment to US citizens, and vigorously prosecute those businesses who knowingly hire illegal labor. This has a side-benefit of making our country less hospitable to illegal immigrants. Another step is to reduce taxation and regulation on business, and offer incentives, like land grants and at-cost energy, to attract foreign companies to set up their factories here.

Imagine if there were more jobs than people to fill them. Businesses would be bidding against each other to hire you.

 

WAN, that's a skill that if you haven't learned the basics thus far, I recommend you do some research. That number will be more of a range (Low-High) than a number. Focus on the mid-point as a target.

Start first with knowing your regional and geographical location and what industries and companies are potential matches for the skill set you provide.

Next make an assessment of your strongest skills, education, training, and background so you know what you have to offer.

You always must compare what you're offering to what they need. Many jobs state specific requirements and job title as you pointed out. If they don't list the salary being considered, don't hesitate to ask the hiring manager or HR person if the job title has a salary range. That's one place to start on specific job postings. Look for the same information for similar job postings from similar companies in your area. Look in other areas too... online...

With the advent of the Internet there are a plethora of ways to find job and career occupational codes; and regional salary data. Many such sites exist because of your taxe payer dollars were spent to mash them up from data collected by government data-collectors.

Private firms may not be as willing to share their data.

Bottom line is that an employees value is determined at the point they say yes to an offer. The employee needs to know what is fair market value for other people willing to do that same job offering your same or nearly same skillset...

There are tools online to make geographical comparisons between a salary for a job type in one region to another region.

The tools are there for the motivated job-seeker who wants to ferret them out.

Good luck in your quest. Later on, I might message you some more specific sites that could be helpful -- if that's what your interested in.

I have learned in my career if I don't know my value; then a potential employer is in a position to under pay for my services. It's rarely the case they will overpay--until you reach that point high on the perch where your work output is very fertile and it rolls downhill.

 

And see, I feel the opposite. People who choose to have children they can't afford to care for without the assistance of others are LESS responsible than people who choose not to have children....why reward poor choices?

 

Thanks for educating me, Bob.

 

100% correct.

I'm in the same boat as you. I was raised borderline poor - but I never knew it....because we lived clean and within our means.

I joined the Army and got out of that dirt-poor town. The Army forced a change in my still-growing brain and I learned that anyone can succeed if they want to bad enough. I was taught the importance of discipline, personal growth, integrity, and teamwork.


Am I alone in thinking that modern parents' failure to instill values like discipline and honest hard work is the chief reason why the Millennial generation seems so lost in space with regard to their expectations of self-worth?

Yeah...there are other peripheral issues that have lead to such an entitled mindset -- but I have to believe that it almost always stems from the upbringing.


Bottom line: the minimum wage NEVER needs to be increased drastically. That's a knee-jerk reaction that will undoubtedly come back to bite us with all the negative factors that have been brought up in this thread.

Modest increases to adjust for cost of living have to be carefully managed so they do not cause more harm than good.

The Federal Government will inevitably screw it up with its typical "one size fits all" approach.

Minimum wage needs to be managed by the individual states.

$15 an hour might work in Seattle - but it won't work in places like Jacksonville, FL - which is larger than Seattle (12th largest vs. 18th largest in US), but does not have the same cost of living.

One size NEVER fits all!

 

What about people who don't have the brains to succeed, no matter how hard they try? These people exit. Or people who are born without the traits of discipline, personal growth, integrity, and teamwork? By this I mean, people who just do not exhibit these traits, probably due to their innate genetics, no matter how hard their parents or teachers try to instill these in them?

No disagreement here.

 

Use protection. There are people who have kids just to get more money in their welfare check. Thank goodness its not as bad as it used to be

You should be paid what you and the job are worth period

 

Yeah that's brilliant for an all volunteer force.

We should also have mandatory service to go along with that.

 

Productive social programs are fine. Every country has social programs. That doesn't make it a socialist country.

The problem with social government programs is that they usually screw them up, or use them to garner votes no matter how bad they are for society.

I already touched on the last sentence.

 

Somehow you are equating unskilled min wage types that have family's as people that are responsible enough to chose to have children to begin with...

Are you advocating post birth abortion?

If not...people at the age of 15-19 and made a huge mistake, but have come to their senses and will work 2-3 full times jobs should in my opinion be able to raise children better then the parents.
Then we have the whole other category of Male/female widows, people forced in caring for dependents, the unablebodied with the right work ethic, etc...

Iv said early on in this thread, dependentless people can make $10 stretch a week, and live in a box and be happy. They are not my concern.

I am not talking about those idiots you see in teen mom by the way.

 

Family and charities.

If a family can breed bad traits into their children (that they probably have no business producing in the first place) then they can buck up and take care of the problems they create.

Also, you might be surprised at just how generous the American public is -- especially the very wealthy. So many of those "rich fat cats" are so freely-giving of their money to worthwhile charities. They do not deserve the bad rap they get.

I'm an advocate for anything to help the needy -- except the tyranny of forcing hard-working taxpayers to shell out their money for programs that only perpetuate peoples' dependence on government and that are administered for the main purpose of getting votes.

Does anyone really believe that politicians - D or R - actually care about doing things for the poor that actually help them get out of their situation? No - they don't...because they depend on those people to feel beholding to Big Daddy Gub'ment so they'll keep voting them into office.


Does that sound cynical?

It sounds realistic to me.

 

there is no such thing as a welfare check anymore...Its called Tanf, at it pay up to $300 a month no matter how many kids you have...what are you talking about.

 

They end up living lowly existences and hopefully dont spread those poor traits to a bunch of offspring.

Or they learn them when they figure out how much it sucks to be lazy and undiciplined and better themselves. Ever heard that invention is born out of necessity?

 

Those today in America who scrub toilets for a living are incompetent at the job of scrubbing toilets for a career but demand wages as if they had an AA (associate degree) in toilet maintenance engineering. The way things have been going I'm pretty sure I will live to see the day when you will be able to attend a community college and earning a AA in toilet maintenance engineering.

The cheapest way to learn how to scrub a toilet is by joining the U.S. military, at least you learn how to do it right.

Back when America was great you had clean toilets in America.

For the uneducated and unskilled burger flippers, the educated burger flippers attend Hamburger University and make over $200K per year more than enough to raise a family on. -> http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/mcd/...ing_and_development/hamburger_university.html

 

But, you see, I am not suggesting that Timmy gets to go to Harvard. He doesn't get to go, unless he is such a genius that he gets an all expense paid scholarship. In fact, Timmy doesn't get a lot of things. He doesn't get a house; he gets a studio apartment. He doesn't get a new car; he gets a 10 year old Civic. He doesn't get his food at the local Safeway; he gets it at Grocery Outlet. He doesn't get his clothes at the mall; he gets them at New To You. He got the furniture in his apartment used off Craig's list. Same with his TV. He never goes out for breakfast, lunch, or dinner. He brown-bags it at work. If his employer gives him a paid vacation, he relaxes at home, but hopping on a plane to Vegas is out of the question. If Timmy needs a doctor he can go. This is Timmy's life. It's working hard, earning little more than the necessities.

But Timmy isn't on welfare, and virtually all of his income is returned right back into the economy. And Timmy still has all the motivation in the world to improve himself, to move up, to attain more skills, and to strive to make more money. But even if he doesn't, you and I are not getting the bill from the government to support Timmy.

Let's say there was no welfare at all. Nothing. No subsidies, no nothing. If this were the case, why would you toil full time if that toil didn't sustain you? What if you were just slowly dying because your work didn't sustain you? You would have two choices. (1) Do different work that would sustain you. (2) Die. Faced with those two choices, nobody would ever do work that didn't sustain them. And, because of that, no employer could offer work that wouldn't sustain the worker. Even in our own U.S. history, you can go back to a time when this was true.

What happened that changed that? I won't go into that for the sake of brevity of this reply, but it is wrong. We are out of whack, imo...$30 million CEOs and their workers who need welfare paid for by you and me. I think we need to go back to a time where, if your work was needed, your compensation would sustain you, even if very modestly.

We could balance the damn budget if we did that. We could get a lot more money circulating in the lower and middle classes. The CEOs would still be fine, even if they were only making $5 million instead of $30 million. Crime would be reduced. Social dysfunction would be reduced. The attitudes of entitlement and dependence would be reduced. And our politicians would lose some of their power to bribe and distract the lower classes with little shiny things as they like to do. The tax burden on those who make more would be reduced.

If the definition of a conservative is one who wants to keep things as they are, then I am not a conservative. But if the definition of a conservative is one who would like things to be like they used to be, then, on this topic, I am a real conservative.

Cheers!

 

Who says their married or have kids? Suppose their 20 and living at home ?If you have kids go find a better job or two

Its strange most us here who were in the service grew up poor but didnt really know it. Heck I had 6 brothers and my father was an enlisted man in the Navy for 20 years while I was growing up. He was a millionaire by the time he died by applying what he learned in the Navy. The house I grew up in cost $7000 and had 2 bedrooms which he expanded to four when I got to like 15

I think everyone should go through basic and straighten their asses out

 

Doesn't work what ever you raise the minimum wage to withn months it still won't be enough to live on and there will be more people making that or not enough more than that to matter. My life experience strongly suggests that one has to make 2.5 to 3 times minimum wage tp have a comfortable life.

 

Actually, the way some here seem to want it, they want their toilet scrubbers to also burger flip at less then min wage....What would prompt washing hands in between since free market without government oversight, would dictate they better be scrubbing that toilet rather then standing around waiting for the next customer, AKA Food health and safety out the window in place of maximizing profits in a competitive market.

 

That swimmer I mentioned, his work is needed to sustain him. But it doesn't. There is no way to pass a law that makes it otherwise. The idea that if you need something bad enough it will happen... that's sold a lot of lottery tickets. It doesn't work.

If you want things to be like they used to be, start by getting rid of your iPhone. And Timmy's Civic that was made only 10 years ago. If on the other hand, you want a better life—someone has to do more to accomplish it.

To take more out, you gotta put more in. So either do more, or do something more valuable. Option (1).




​

 

I agree totally. There need to be consequences for having kids you can't afford, divorce, taking on debt you can't afford (new cars, credit cards), etc...... Only then will people be more careful about the decisions they make. Our nanny state has taken away the sting from stupidity. Stupidity should hurt.

 

Ha! Well, if they're 20 and working full time instead of going to college, then maybe they should be able to move out and quit leeching off their parents.

My wife grew up very poor, one of two children whose father ran off and disappeared when she was a baby. Her mother worked as a checker at their town's Sears store. My wife can tell you about living in a converted basement apartment under a house and having "potato soup" for dinner often. (Canned milk, potatoes, "government surplus" cheese, and a little bacon) They had no car, and her mother walked to work. Her clothes were always hand-me-downs. But interestingly, other than the occasional government surplus cheese, her mother sustained them on her meager salary without welfare. She would not be able to today, and this is what I object to.

My wife lived like that until she was about 12, and her mother remarried. Things got a little better then, but she went to work when she was 16. She had to give some of her earnings to her parents to help with expenses, but she got to keep some too. She used that money to buy the first new clothes she had ever had in her whole life. By the time she was 18, she and her sister were living independently in their own place (rented), working and sharing expenses. That was how things were when I first met her 2 years later. She's been working ever since.

Today, we want for nothing. She is 59 and still working full time. She is very generous and impeccably honest. Ha! She watches me carefully when we go out to dinner when it's time for me to pull money out of my wallet for the waitress's tip. If it isn't at least 20% she scowls at me and adds to it with her own money. The nicer the waitress was, the more she gives. Sometimes a lot more than 20%, lol. But, you see, she remembers how it was.

 

OK, again, thanks for the continuing discussion.

Here's the problem. The "low-value" jobs are still necessary, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Chevron doesn't make billions if a minimum wage worker doesn't pump the gas and take your money in the Chevron convenience store.

All I'm saying is that if Chevron needs this guy to make their billions, why should I help sustain him with my tax money? He's working at something they need him to do, and if he doesn't do it, they make zero.

I don't want to sustain full time workers, no matter what they do. All I'm talking about here is basic sustenance. No frills. A modest little roof over their heads, unprepared food, and medical care - paid for by their work. I don't think that should be a radical idea.

Actually, come to think of it, it should be a damn conservative idea.

 

You are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. You simply replace welfare with a minimum "living wage" that is just passed on to the consumer - assuming the employer does not eliminate the job through automation or outsourcing or moving offshore. Eliminate welfare at the cost of an increased cost of living for all and higher unemployment. Not a good plan.