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.

 

So, this is how a Milennial sees a solution to the "Living Wage" issue....

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+27 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
As a strange, masochistic, "guilty pleasure"....I tend to read Gawker every day at work. It's light and fluffy...and, doesn't set off the network filters the way ATS would.

This morning, I came across this...


Fortunately, there is a way to reconcile the needs of people to earn a living with the desire of greed-centric corporations not to pay higher wages. It is to provide everyone with a basic income. The state takes in tax money; everyone is granted a certain sum to provide for their basic needs; and everyone can then work without feeling that they must beg a faceless corporate monster for enough income to cover rent and food and child care. And what do you know: the idea of providing a minimum income is catching on. It is somewhere near the realm of reality in Canada; it’s been instituted in a Dutch city; it’s being tried in Germany; it’s popular in Finland and Switzerland. In other words, the most civilized nations in the world, with the highest standards of living and strongest social safety nets, are leading the way on the minimum income issue.

A minimum basic income would allow us to dismantle vast bureaucracies that exist to police welfare recipients, and just cut everyone a check. And it would take a great deal of pressure off the movement to raise the minimum wage, because everyone’s income would have a floor already, meaning even low-paid workers would be less vulnerable to financial disaster. It’s a large-scale way to smooth out some of the inequality that plagues our nation. And it would allow fast food CEOs to stop bitching.

How would we pay for it? Partly by redirecting money we already spend, and partly by taxing the rich, like fast food CEOs, and by taxing corporations, like fast food corporations. Well. At least they could bitch about something novel.



Source - Gawker Article "The Brilliant Simplicity of a Guaranteed Minimum Income"



This must be the moment I crested the hill of "Get OFF MY LAWN" in my life...

I guess I just cannot divorce myself from the idea that if you don't like your lot in life, CHANGE IT. BE the change in your life that you want and need.

I'm the one in my family everyone was CONVINCED would be the screwup.

HS Drop out
Only 45 college credits

BUT...

I have a very solid IT career...I've done rather important things with it.... and, I make a good living.

I started out doing retail. Washing dishes. Waiting tables. Bartending.

Got sick and tired of feeling my brain drip out of my ear. So, I changed things.


*I* got my ass into college.

*I* got myself noticed.

*I* succeeded.



But now, the millennial generation wants a "base living wage" for everyone? Get revenge on the evil wealthy people?


Wow...we are screwed.



+10 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Can't help but wonder if he realizes that to utilize tax money for that, one must have tax money to use? As in either cut funding to something (and you know good and well it won't be the "scientific" study on the sperm count of penguins after mating season or something equally ridiculous) or to raise taxes across the board.

Do we get to take both our paycheck and the free money given simply for existence? Does that mean now corporate America can actually LOWER workers' pay because they're already getting a livable amount of money?

So many logic holes you could run a train through.


+19 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
The wealthy, along with their wealth, will leave the country to avoid paying for the base wage; and the poor, along with their poverty, will stay in order to collect it. It's an economist's nightmare.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
This is a great idea.I gave a lot of Netflix shows to catch up on.


+15 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: nullafides

Can't help but wonder if he realizes that to utilize tax money for that, one must have tax money to use? As in either cut funding to something (and you know good and well it won't be the "scientific" study on the sperm count of penguins after mating season or something equally ridiculous) or to raise taxes across the board.

Do we get to take both our paycheck and the free money given simply for existence? Does that mean now corporate America can actually LOWER workers' pay because they're already getting a livable amount of money?

So many logic holes you could run a train through.


Wrong on all points.

Just use the QE3 money to help the poor instead of billionaires....or stop all corporate welfare and foreign aid....or just charge corporations like GE that pay 0 in taxes a year the correct rate.

There are many ways to do it easily.

Seems there is always money to bomb people or bail out billionaires etc, but never money for solutions that would actually help the current plight of the poor.

Not to mention, the same folks wouldnt qualify for welfare since they would have a base income and working income.

Out of the the 1,000 poor folks I know, less than 5% are lazy and dont work.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

Yeah, you're right.

It could be done a number of ways.


But my point was....WHY?


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

You see one article in Gawker and paint an entire generation as people who all want a "base living wage"? And I'm supposed to take you seriously? You should have "Get off my lawn" tattooed on your forehead.


+17 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides


The problem with the mindset you are using right now OP is you ignore the fact that there are not enough decent jobs for everyone to have one.

You also assume falsely that poor folks are lazy or dont work or dont try to better themselves.

It is a game of musical chairs where there are many people and few chairs.

They arent adding chairs, but are adding people.

So there are always more and more people that work and live in poverty because there is just simply not enough decent jobs for the hard working folks that want them.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

The entitled generation for sure but, they may be easier to forgive for their shortsightedness than the boomers who have no excuse for their vapid self-centered ignorance.

That said, my first exposure to the concept of negative income tax was from Milton Friedman who used it to demonstrate how much money was being consumed by the bureaucracy.

The ultimate point was this:

If you take all of the taxes collected and redistribute them evenly across everyone, each person would receive more than any social assistance program's qualified recipient. Therefore, it would be better for everyone, including the existing "beneficiaries".

The true beneficiaries of social services are the employees who, along with their associated infrastructure, consume the vast majority of the funds intended to assist the poor.

What he didn't anticipate was that, instead of enlightening people to the futility of the welfare state, it engendered an entitlement mindset even greater than had previously existed.
edit on 29-12-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
In my opinion, a lot of young people are confused, scared, and angry at the way their countries are organized. Not a day goes by that we don't here of crooked businessmen and politicians, scandals involving famous people, wars, etc. I don't know how old you guys are but it's scary becoming a young adult in this strange world that seems to becoming a living hell.

Don't just point the finger and blame someone. As I mentioned, many people are confused; regardless how old they are. There's no magic button that we can push that will instantly fix our problems. But as humans we look for ways to solve our problems: Environmental destruction, war, poverty, racism, sickness and disease, etc.

Sadly many people are not logical when it comes to arguing about these problems. It's so much easier to divide ourselves, and follow methods that never really worked in the first place. If we want to really want to change the world for the better, then we need to see the world as it is and understand our limits as a species.


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Apparently the momo in the article flunked basic math.

Let us just say that we are going to give everyone $20,000 and that there are 150,000,000 working class Americans.

That comes out to $3,000,000,000,000 in disbursements that needs to be made yearly with a static population. That is more than 75% of the current Federal budget. The derp is strong.


+11 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

One way to fix this problem with too many people?

STOP IMPORTING THEM!

Seriously, if you examine the birth rate of the country, we aren't actually growing our population except through immigration. Our true birth rate is more like neutral growth.

So maybe if we stopped the wholesale immigration, we'd clear up that "too many people, not enough jobs" thing.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

Can you point me to where I said pay billionaires? Genuine question, as I don't recall typing that at all.

All the poor people you know, less than 5% don't work. Cool story. And has what to do with what I said? I know several people who don't make what would be considered a "living wage". Which is whom I'm referring to in my question. If they suddenly start getting a living wage, can their employer now pay them less since they're getting a freebie the government says is enough to live on? If no, why shouldn't the employer be able to cut wages? They don't need the money to "make a living." If it's a job requiring little to no skill, why bother even pretending to pay them something approaching a living wage anymore?

A living wage for all is a living wage for all, which is what I was addressing. All you're doing is calling welfare by another name and telling me I'm wrong because only some people should get a living wage, not everybody. There are already plenty of people who make getting welfare their "career" so I really don't think your grand idea of calling welfare by another name will change that.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: forkedtongue

Yeah, you're right.

It could be done a number of ways.


But my point was....WHY?


In a ever worsening situation for the many, somthing needs to be done.

The poor will eat the rich, this is an historical maxim.

They will only keep propping up a losing proposition for so long before they revolt against it.

For most especially the young today, there is basically a better chance of hitting the lottery than there is of landing a decent job that even pays close to $50,000 a year.

And honestly $50,000 isnt that much money today at all.

$12,000 to $15,000 a year just for a mortgage, not even a nice place in most cities if you want a good neighborhood.

$300 a week for childcare=$15,600 a year

We are at $30,000 already just for a mortgage and childcare

$300 a month car payment plus $300 a month for insurance = $7,200 a year

$1,000 a month for food= $12,000

LOL that is $49,800 and you didnt even pay your taxes or student loans yet.

Ya $50,000 goes really fast today and that isnt with vacations or anything else like celll phone bills.

Around half of the workforce is making minimum wage, $15,000 a year.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: forkedtongue

Can you point me to where I said pay billionaires? Genuine question, as I don't recall typing that at all.

All the poor people you know, less than 5% don't work. Cool story. And has what to do with what I said? I know several people who don't make what would be considered a "living wage". Which is whom I'm referring to in my question. If they suddenly start getting a living wage, can their employer now pay them less since they're getting a freebie the government says is enough to live on? If no, why shouldn't the employer be able to cut wages? They don't need the money to "make a living." If it's a job requiring little to no skill, why bother even pretending to pay them something approaching a living wage anymore?

A living wage for all is a living wage for all, which is what I was addressing. All you're doing is calling welfare by another name and telling me I'm wrong because only some people should get a living wage, not everybody. There are already plenty of people who make getting welfare their "career" so I really don't think your grand idea of calling welfare by another name will change that.


You suggested that taxes would have to be increased.

I stated how we could do it without doing that.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

Yes. By, essentially, only giving some people welfare by another name.

Which, incidentally, is not at all what the article in the OP proposed.

"Everyone" means everyone. Not some.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Teddy916


Sorry to burst your bubble, but every generational youth coming of age experiences the SAME negative conditions you have outlined. There is nothing going on here that has not happened to your ancestors in the past. Read some history, and you will see that.

There has always been:


  • Wars
  • Depressions
  • Unemployment
  • Social unrest
  • Environmental tragedies
  • Natural disasters



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: forkedtongue
Ya $50,000 goes really fast today
...


Wow. $50,000? That jacks it up to around $7,500,000,000,000.

Why not make it $100,000 per person and I can take everyone shopping with me at Versace.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: forkedtongue
Ya $50,000 goes really fast today
...


Wow. $50,000? That jacks it up to around $7,500,000,000,000.

Why not make it $100,000 per person and I can take everyone shopping with me at Versace.


Mamma needs a new handbag. You don't know what it's like brah



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

You know what?

Sometimes, in order to have a decent job, you have to start somewhere south of $50K and earn your way up. I don't think anyone would call my husband's job or career anything but decent. He certainly earns well more than the national wage average, but in order to have that decent job he holds now? He had to start well below the national wage average as an untested, inexperienced college grad.

It took him a decade to double his starting salary which put him in your decent salary range easily, but he didn't start there and if that was his asking salary to start, he never would have gotten there, either.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join