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.

 

Wage Required to Afford a 2-Bedroom Rental in Every State

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


Well at 1.68% margin they are not.

THEY HAD A HIGHER NET PROFIT. Pure profit. Using their business model, they have outdone Walmart in profits, and their employees are not on the dole.

Okay, yes, I guess we're done.


edit on 6/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I've gone to Costco plenty of times and spent less than even $100. Just two weeks ago actually. I needed a 4lb jug of protein and some protein bars. Walked out for a grand total of $69. That purchase will last me over a month, and saved me about another $69 compared to shopping at Walmart.

The poor would do well to learn to buy in bulk, as the price per lb or unit is lower. The initial up-front cost is more, but in the long run the savings are deeper.

I suspect the poor don't shop at Costco because they might not take SNAP or other food stamp assistance?

I see a lot of "People of Walmart" types in our two Costcos. There is never an electric scooter not being used, and never a lack of a gazillion kids running around like maniacs.

I remember when I was a kid Costco and Sams had a STRICT policy regarding children. The employees would get on the parents case if the kids were allowed to run around. The employees were driving fork lifts around and it simply wasn't safe for the kids.

Now? Eh, whatever. Let your kid spill his jumbo soda on your leg and cause your cart to bash into the wall. Who can expect you to keep track of all your kids in a such a busy place anyway, right?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

I've gone to Costco plenty of times and spent less than even $100. Just two weeks ago actually. I needed a 4lb jug of protein and some protein bars. Walked out for a grand total of $69. That purchase will last me over a month, and saved me about another $69 compared to shopping at Walmart.

The poor would do well to learn to buy in bulk, as the price per lb or unit is lower. The initial up-front cost is more, but in the long run the savings are deeper.


You have more will power than me...hehe

Disclaimer: We have all been poor at some time except for an extremely small portion of society. The poor I refer to below are the extremely ignorant portion of that group who get no where in life, can not make good life choices, have little will to achieve and most likely sit on the very low end of normal intelligence.

This is the group that supports a large part of Walmart's 465 billion in sales. This is also the group that would rather buy 10 processed dinners for 50 dollars than to buy a 50 lb bag of rice and 10 pounds of chicken for less while throwing in some veggies and get 30 meals out of the chicken with 400 adult serving out of the rice...

The saying you can't fix stupid applies in many cases here, so I really do not want Walmart to be the driving force as to why we need fix our minimum income issues. I see it as a quality job issue instead, so lets not force 20 bucks an hour to pay shelf stockers, but to actually bring back/create 20 dollar an hour jobs.



edit on 13-6-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

WWwwwwow.
:
Wow.

So - now we know what you're really talking about.
Got it.
Interesting.

And please don't assume you know what I think about your theory. Not saying it's wrong.....

I'm just..... it's.....Really? Yeah, wow - I'm bowled over by this admission/statement...... It opens up a whole new topic. I think you should start a thread about it.
Really.

Talk to you later.



edit on 6/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



The saying you can't fix stupid applies in many cases here, so I really do not want Walmart to be the driving force as to why we need fix our minimum income issues. I see it as a quality job issue instead, so lets not force 20 bucks an hour to pay shelf stockers, but to actually bring back/create 20 dollar an hour jobs.


This is not possible. The jobs are not just simply overseas many of the jobs have been replaced with machines. As the manufacturing is brought back to the US the workforce is paid a much lower percentage than it was before it left due to the fact that the labor unions have been decimated.

Whats left of the entry level jobs goes to revolving door staffing agencies where they have thousands and thousands of workers to pool from so they never have to hire. Other work is contracted out.

Try getting an entry level machine shop or maintenance position in whats left of the printing shops or manufacturing plants. I've worked in 2 print shops and i tried to get maintenance positions in both and they wouldnt train they would only hire new people, but thats because they knew they didn't have to.

You need to understand whats going on with the economy and yes your right there isn't 20$ an hour jobs here anymore and they aren't coming back.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
You need to understand whats going on with the economy and yes your right there isn't 20$ an hour jobs here anymore and they aren't coming back.


Then at some point we will need to realize that socialized support is the future for 50% of America. We got 310 million people, so maybe that is 150 million too much to provide everyone with a viable job to live on. I really do not have any answers for the group that have low skills, educations and little desire to change any of that.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think everyone is born to be a skilled money making machine. A good majority of people on this planet just want a simple life and they should be able to live that life without starving or going homeless.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

I don't think everyone is born to be a skilled money making machine. A good majority of people on this planet just want a simple life and they should be able to live that life without starving or going homeless.


I agree and many do live that way in other parts of the world, but we are talking American consumers here and even the poor need their IPhones, TVs, cable, internet, Starbucks, designer shoes, car, computers, games, entertainment, so on and so on...Very few in America can actually live the life you suggest.

I watched a homeless guy talking on an IPhone 6 saying, "ya I'm still homeless" to someone... geez
edit on 14-6-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm not quick to judge anyone homeless.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

I'm not quick to judge anyone homeless.


My point is we are a consumer society and that would need to change...



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
In order to do that we need to start caring about each other more and focus less on being successful and making money.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Xtrozero
In order to do that we need to start caring about each other more and focus less on being successful and making money.


We tried that with communism, it doesn't work. Looks good on paper but once human nature gets involved it fails horribly. There is a reason why we slow weak humans are the top of the food chain and it is not all about intelligence...

I really feel that you spend way too much time invested in contemplating what the super rich do. You can complain that the super rich drive low wages, but over 70% of American workers do not work for the super rich and much of them have low wages too, so there is a lot more to it than a small bunch of greedy people. For me they can live on Mars as far as I care. I take care of my family first no matter what they do. We have 2 million years of pack mentality to over come and maybe in another few 100,000 years we might.

I don't see the biggest issue as an external thing of not caring for each other enough. I see it as more of an internal issue of people not caring for themselves enough. If you take care of yourself then you have the power to take care of others. That self generated power builds and in time you can also take care of your family, then friends, then associates, then townships and so on. If all you are able to do in life due to limitations is take care of yourself you are still better off than about 40% of American population.

My personal power level is myself, family, some friends and small level of township, that's my limit to date. So being poor is not the issue, self induced poor quality of life is the issue. I have lived all over the world and most of the world is very poor, but they have a good quality of life. They are that way because they take care of themselves first, or die, and then use synergy to take care of the group. It is not like that in America where you can have 40% of a town that does nothing but sit on their porch or street corner all day. These people would either change or die in other parts of the world, so until people change or need to change we will live with what we have today.


edit on 14-6-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

There's also a real lack of synergy as well.

People can't just go to a plot of land and start farming it's not possible.

I will admit though if they cut the social programs well have some serious change quickly because everyone will see how destitute we are culturally spiritually and economically.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
I will admit though if they cut the social programs well have some serious change quickly because everyone will see how destitute we are culturally spiritually and economically.


We live in a time in America where a person can go two paths.

Path 1: Do nothing with your life, live a really crappy quality of life, but you have the freedom to do nothing but breath all day.
Path 2: Put a lot of effort into improving yourself your whole life, always trying to do better and better.

The problem is we have a very large percentage of people who willingly take path 1. I do not think there is another country on the planet that allows path 1 other than America. Even in developed countries you need to do something, and undeveloped countries you would die...

How do we fix this? The American Indian is the most subsidized group in America, they are also the poorest, and live a low quality of life. African Americans are second in all this, but Asians are doing great, even when at one point in our past they were considered below slaves in value. You can also put white people in the same boat when they have the same commonalities. I guess it is just human nature to go the path of least resistance for many even if it means a crappy life for a good portion of America.


edit on 14-6-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Your crazy man it's not like that there's entire cities in this country that without government subsidies would turn into war zones like Detroit.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Xtrozero

Your crazy man it's not like that there's entire cities in this country that without government subsidies would turn into war zones like Detroit.


Like Ferguson as example...?? I could name 20 more off the top of my head..

My point is that subsidies have created a portion of our population into people who want to do nothing unless it is an easy buck like drugs etc are. My other point is more subsidies doesn't solve anything it makes it worse in the long run. As I said I do not have an answer for this, we dug the hole deep, so I do not know how to back fill it right. Most likely there are a few generations lost, and we will need to restart with the young and get them on a different course.
edit on 14-6-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We live in a time in America where a person can go two paths.

Path 1: Do nothing with your life, live a really crappy quality of life, but you have the freedom to do nothing but breath all day.
Path 2: Put a lot of effort into improving yourself your whole life, always trying to do better and better.



The problem is that both those paths are extremes, but are really the only options, and that's a problem.

Most people are willing to work, they want to do their part, go to work, and live a decent life. But that's not possible, instead one needs to either tirelessly push their limits most of their life to have a decent living, or have a crap living. That's our options, which is ridiculous.

Any person who's actually working 40 hours a week should at bare minimum, whether from one job or two, no matter what job, be making enough to live comfortably on.

40 hours every week is more than enough contribution from any human being to society to deserve a decent living in that society, period.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I'm curious how the report stacks up to anyone else's experiences? It says for Indiana you need $744 on average. I have lived in Indiana for 15 years. There's only 4 large cities here and I'm not in one of them, but I own a 2,000 square foot home that didn't cost anywhere near $744 a month. I rented a two bedroom apt for $445 a month. I don't put too much stock into their numbers.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

When did you buy your home?

What if you bought a home right now?

What would the difference be if any?



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove

Any person who's actually working 40 hours a week should at bare minimum, whether from one job or two, no matter what job, be making enough to live comfortably on.

40 hours every week is more than enough contribution from any human being to society to deserve a decent living in that society, period.


I agree the person is important, but what do we do with the jobs that do not generate enough to pay a living wage? If I hired you to sell ice cream as example and I paid you 15 dollars an hour but you only sold 10 dollars per hour what do I do?




top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join