It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

page: 23
107
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.


Says who???

I would love to hear why this isn't possible, because you know, it has never happened before in any point of time of the US.




posted on May, 9 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
In plain English for those of you who have problems with the language.

Look in the mirror, I see myself, you probably see whatever you want to...

We are all to blame for the way things are.

a reply to: macman



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Aazadan
But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.


Says who???

I would love to hear why this isn't possible, because you know, it has never happened before in any point of time of the US.



Because if a living wage isn't paid, people can't work a job. A job has to pay enough for someone to afford to eat and have a roof over their head. If it doesn't, not only will they not work but they won't have the resources to be presentable to the job. I'm not saying the government has to mandate that living wage (though I'm in favor of that right now because the corporations aren't holding up their side of things), but that if the corporation doesn't pay it and there's no social safety net in place people simply don't work. Instead people will steal to survive. The last thing we need is more people in prisons.
edit on 9-5-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Aazadan

But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.


There once was a time where there was neither Social Security, Welfare or a Minimum wage in America. Once you suckle at the teat of Government, they won't let you go.


At that time slavery was legal and widely adopted. Minimum wage was eventually instated because those positions were effectively slavery in another form.

The cost of living was also much lower at that time. People could have 5 or 6 kids, and actually support them on a below average wage.

That is not doable today.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Some people get heart attacks or strokes or cancer from their tastes and habits. Our economy has a similar dysfunctional status.

No one born after 1900 has lived in a healthy economy. Our current economy is leftovers from the Industrial Revolution, which couldn't have happened with a minimum wage. Todays rich are either crony collectivist capitalists or dumpster gourmets.

You are pulling into the gas station and demanding other people's gas.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: macman
They are both sucking the tax payer dry.
Remove them all.


But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.


If this was in reference to me, it was about not paying welfare to working people. Part of the reason people work for minimum wage is they know they will get by with welfare (kinda) .



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: BurbGirl378
a reply to: V22tech

It doesn't matter weather a minimum wage job was intended to be a career. Many people don't have the "luxury" of a career. They get a job because they have to pay for shelter, clean water, and food. You seem to be quite smitten with yourself and the fact that you've had the ability to obtain post secondary education. For many people, for many reasons they have not been afforded the additional training that, in your opinion, makes you so much more valuable. You seem determined to re-coup your investment in the Post Secondary Degree you've obtained.

We are all human. We all function in the same economy, and really, I know a good burger when I get one. Showing up on time every day, well fed, clean, and prepared to work are qualities that every employee should be rewarded for by a profitable Corporation. Whether it is Walmart or Lockheed we all need a livable wage.



I love you. I seriously love you. Ive said on this site a LOT that I'm 41 now, female, single momma to an awesome son. I was working at an automobile manufacturing plant for a while. I chose to go back into fast food because I love it. I have two jobs right now; one is over 40 a week, the other is 20 to supplement what im pulling in right now. I make 8 an hour at the one job and 8.25 at the part time one. Min wage here is 7.25 so im doing 'better' than minimum.

I have 3/4 of the way towards my bachelors degree done. I can not return until I pay off my loans because they ran dry. I CHOSE to do online schooling with Devry because no vehicle to get to classes and where I lived, even brick schools were far far away. I thought my loans would cover it. Nope. Lesson learned. It's fine as it was not meant to be.

I'm in management training at my 8 dollar an hour job. Right now im making miniumish pay because I chose to start from the bottom to learn the company and all I had to do. In about 6 months I will be assistant mgr pulling in around 43k a year. When I become store manager, that jumps to 52 to 61k a year. When I become an Area Supervisor, it jumps to 74k to 89k a year.

So to answer all 'how can you make 8 an hour and be happy?' I'll reply this: because i have amazing salaries to look forward to after working my butt off. I wont be 8 an hour forever. Just for a moment. With my two jobs now, I have 800 a month extra to save. I'm not on food stamps or anything. No insurance, nothing. Just me, my drive to work and my goals. Why didn't I do this sooner since I"ve been fast food almost my entire life? Who knows. Who cares. Now is what counts. Now is all I have to make my future best.

You go, me. You go.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: sarra1833
I'm in management training at my 8 dollar an hour job. Right now im making miniumish pay because I chose to start from the bottom to learn the company and all I had to do. In about 6 months I will be assistant mgr pulling in around 43k a year. When I become store manager, that jumps to 52 to 61k a year. When I become an Area Supervisor, it jumps to 74k to 89k a year.


Great, but not everyone can be a manager. Even if everyone were qualified the ratio is what 10 regular employees to every 1 assistant manager? That solution only works for 10% of the population. The other 90% still need a wage that's large enough to support themselves.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't mean to be rude, but "average" is a calculated, non-existent number. Averages are easily skewed and used when statistical overlords want to portray affairs in a certain light. More telling statistics would be the whole picture (mode, median, percentiles), not just the "average" that's spit at you by the rich owned news media.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Aazadan
But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.


Says who???

I would love to hear why this isn't possible, because you know, it has never happened before in any point of time of the US.



Because if a living wage isn't paid, people can't work a job. A job has to pay enough for someone to afford to eat and have a roof over their head. If it doesn't, not only will they not work but they won't have the resources to be presentable to the job. I'm not saying the government has to mandate that living wage (though I'm in favor of that right now because the corporations aren't holding up their side of things), but that if the corporation doesn't pay it and there's no social safety net in place people simply don't work. Instead people will steal to survive. The last thing we need is more people in prisons.


However if corporations know the government will close the gap between what they have to pay by law and what people need, then corporations will take advantage of it. Removing welfare for the working overnight requiring corporations to pay a higher wage would render many business models not viable anymore affecting shareholders (not just billionaires 401k holders as well). Some fastfood chains which do not operate profitably outside the US would be bankrupt over night.

But that just goes to show that the riches some entrepreneurs acquired have only been made possible with tax dollars to begin with. Unfortunately I doubt that somebody like John Schnatter, whom figured out that he can get rich highering people at minimum wage, has the expertise to deal with such a drastic change.

As you can see unraveling the situation cold turkey would be painful.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Aazadan

But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.


There once was a time where there was neither Social Security, Welfare or a Minimum wage in America. Once you suckle at the teat of Government, they won't let you go.


At that time slavery was legal and widely adopted. Minimum wage was eventually instated because those positions were effectively slavery in another form.


No it wasn't.....stop, read up and don't be ignorant.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil


stop, read up and don't be ignorant.

Perhaps it's you who should read up on the 'industrial revolution' and child labor, the appalling living conditions that were in place, (such as still exist in places like Bangladesh today), extreme poverty, and why laws were enacted to combat those greed-based policies.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: darkbake

"Based on my understanding of the Bible and what I see presented to me as right-wing opinions, the conservatives in this country are going to hell."

Please expand on this, what kind of disconnect do you see?


First of all, there is a complete disconnect between the philosophy of Jesus and the Republican Party platform. I am confident that if Jesus were here and asked if we should meld our ethical philosophies with political policy, he would agree. For example, I cannot imagine Jesus, who advocated giving up possessions for the poor as well as pacifism, and the first church in Jerusalem, which literally practiced so called primitive or Christian communism, would support a political economic system which was all about greed, cutting taxes for the rich, no living wage for the poor, little regulation for corporations, no environmental protection, torturing non-citizens (waterboarding), and invading countries and killing civilians for lies (Iraq War). NONE OF THIS SEEMS CONGRUENT WITH JESUS OR THE NEW TESTAMENT. And, before you say that the Bible doesn't advocate the government doing that but only people through charity, I will refer you to Martin Luther King Jr, who addressed this perfectly: “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. ” You can't claim to truly embody the ideals of Jesus or God or spirituality and give a few dollars here and there and then support a political ideology and system that actually is exploitative and helps the rich, not the middle class or lower class. Such is hypocrisy.
edit on 11-5-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
First, obviously at some point a minimum wage would become too high and negatively impact the economy. However, real wages for most people haven't even risen since the 1970's, factually. Meanwhile, income for the top income earners has exponentially risen. Just keeping up with inflation wages should be far higher, which they are not. These are all economic facts.

Given these facts and the amount of money that many minimum wage paying companies are making, it is not at all remiss to say that it is fair that more profit sharing occur. At the very least a country with the biggest GDP in the world can provide a living wage.

Third, it is likely again that the current minimum wage is BELOW the actual market equilibrium, perfectly competitive wage. This means that even if it was to rise to that point, zero negative economic impact would be felt.

Fourth, there are actual econometric studies looking at the impact of moderate increases in minimum wage in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The studies found zero evidence for a decrease in employment nor economic productivity.

Basically, there is very little evidence for the arguments that Fox News and Republican pundits put forth. Literally, none.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: darkbake

"The French raised their minimum wage to a point where it did negatively affect their economy."

So there is evidence that a higher minimum wage can negatively affect an economy. Is there evidence that a lower minimum wage can hurt an economy?

"For the United States, the correct minimum wage choice for the strongest economy is just above $10.00 / hr."

Why $10? Why not $12? How could higher wages hurt?

edit on 11-5-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda
However if corporations know the government will close the gap between what they have to pay by law and what people need, then corporations will take advantage of it. Removing welfare for the working overnight requiring corporations to pay a higher wage would render many business models not viable anymore affecting shareholders (not just billionaires 401k holders as well). Some fastfood chains which do not operate profitably outside the US would be bankrupt over night.


Those chains don't operate profitably however fast food isn't a US only thing. Those chains outside of the US have changed their business model and are able to turn a profit. The US companies simply replicate the US way of doing things. I happen to agree with the idea of cutting welfare, corporations won't pay a proper wage as long as the government is subsidizing it. Basically welfare programs are depressing the wage.

The problem comes in the fact that these companies can't afford to pay a proper wage as things currently stand, and they're going to resist as well. This means that to suddenly shock the system we're going to lose a bunch of jobs and have a bunch of people with jobs suddenly unable to afford food and shelter. The current situation is a result of 35-40 years worth of the problem compounding. An overnight fix isn't possible without causing severe problems through the economy.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: pavil


stop, read up and don't be ignorant.

Perhaps it's you who should read up on the 'industrial revolution' and child labor, the appalling living conditions that were in place, (such as still exist in places like Bangladesh today), extreme poverty, and why laws were enacted to combat those greed-based policies.


I am well aware of history, thank you. The person I replied to was stating a outright lie, care to dispute that? Please tell me when the Minimum wage, Social Security and Welfare started........ then we can talk. America went without those for almost 70% of it's existence. Facts are facts. In fact America became a world and economic power without ANY of those.
edit on 11-5-2014 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
I am well aware of history, thank you. The person I replied to was stating a outright lie, care to dispute that? Please tell me when the Minimum wage, Social Security and Welfare started........ then we can talk. America went without those for almost 70% of it's existence. Facts are facts. In fact America became a world and economic power without ANY of those.


It wasn't a lie, you're the one ignorant of history. Until the end of the Civil War the US was reliant on slaves to make business economical. Eventually that was outlawed and industrialization took place. The minimum wage wasn't established federally until 1938 however it had been in place in many states starting as early as 1901.

I would be in favor of removing a minimum wage. The problem is that corporations and the right use that as code to pay people less when the opposite is true. If you remove the minimum you actually have to pay them more so that they can support themselves.
edit on 12-5-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Until the end of the Civil War the US was reliant on slaves to make business economical. Eventually that was outlawed and industrialization took place.


Slavery was outlawed in the north eastern states by the turn of the 19th century 60 years prior to the Civil War. Additionally, the Industrial Revolution began in the same states at nearly the same time as water powered mills and factories began appearing throughout the region.

Steam power allowed it to travel to the remainder of the country but the revolution had already occurred in the north east.




edit on 12-5-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Because if a living wage isn't paid, people can't work a job.

So......if it doesn't pay enough, they can't work the job??
Ummm, okay then.




originally posted by: Aazadan
A job has to pay enough for someone to afford to eat and have a roof over their head.

No.
The person needs to earn enough to do so.
The responsibility does not fall on the Job or the company.



originally posted by: Aazadan
If it doesn't, not only will they not work but they won't have the resources to be presentable to the job.

Again, being presentable is the responsibility of the person.


originally posted by: Aazadan
I'm not saying the government has to mandate that living wage (though I'm in favor of that right now because the corporations aren't holding up their side of things), but that if the corporation doesn't pay it and there's no social safety net in place people simply don't work.

No no no no no.
It is the responsibility of the individual to take care of themselves.

So, what I see now is crybabies not only wanting the Govt to take care of people. but now Companies to take care of people as well.

Say it with me. It is a J-O-B. You work at a company you choose, agree on pay for work performed. Want more??? Go get a better job by developing skills, gaining education or experience.


originally posted by: Aazadan
Instead people will steal to survive. The last thing we need is more people in prisons.

So, now society is held hostage by the tired crap of people will turn to crime if the Govt does give free stuff.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: macman


No.
The person needs to earn enough to do so.
The responsibility does not fall on the Job or the company.

And if they don't earn enough to be able to "appropriately" dress/acquire transportation/feed themselves.....??

A responsible company will care about it's employees. Work/life balance is a big issue these days. You know that.

So yes....the hiring entity needs to ensure the hiree/employee has enough to sustain themselves -- so that the employee doesn''t have excessive absenteeism.



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join