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

a reply to: Discotech
Now I get it. You hate Gates. It isn't really the wealthy you despise, it's the wealthy that don't spend their wealth as you think they should.
So you're a personal friend of Oprah and know for a fact that she made hers the "right" way? Good. But why would you deprive all those kids in Africa of her help by having the US government confiscate 95% of her income? Why would you think that the US government could do a better job of determining who was in need than Ms. Winfrey? From what I can observe from afar she's doing a better job of managing money than the government ever has. But then, I'm not a personal friend who knows how she makes and spends her money.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: diggindirt

If we could make the distinction between what we wanted to do and what we were able to do, we might make a difference in life.

The truth is we never know the difference we might make in a life. It might not be the thousand dollar donation to some charity that really makes a difference. It might be the twenty that we hand to the lady in the grocery line who is searching through her purse for the quarters to finish paying her tab. Handing it to her saying, "I think you dropped this." even though you just pulled it from your pocket. It might be the hundred dollar bill you slipped into a relative's coat pocket because you know they need it more than you do. It might be the load of wood you ordered to be delivered anonymously to a friend who is in need, or having a propane tank filled before the cold of winter hits.
On a personal level we can't save the world. We can pay forward the help we've gotten through the years. But no matter how much we "help" some folks---they will always, always be back for more because they are unwilling to "help" themselves much less improving their lives to the point where they are able to "pay it forward." And this is NOT a theory on my part---it's a fact learned from experience. It has been proven many times by studies of people who win lotteries.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Starting pay at 6 figures is very rare, what type of job is it?

Software engineering, games mostly. Unity Developers for example get between $80 and $110 depending on area ($110 would be somewhere like San Francisco but you're better off taking the $80 in a place like Austin). The field has high unemployment though, the pay is great but part of that is contingent on keeping a job, you can expect to be out of work for 6 months out of every 2 years because small studios just don't stay open for very long. This is because 75% of products don't make money and there's high investment costs to build them (and because of this, of the ones that are successful most of that money goes to investors that want a very high RoI so studios can never build up capital).

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Where are you getting your figures from? The NYSE does about $1 trillion a month in exchanges and the NASDAQ less than that. I will be generous and call it $24 trillion for both annually, what is 1% of that? Answer: Not even remotely enough.

It was something that I read here (with actual valid links) a couple years ago, around 2010 or 2011 I think. Unfortunately, since then searching for terms like Wall Street and 1% gives a totally different set of results in Google. I'll see if I can find the link for you, I was looking for it last night without much success.

Based on what you posted, I assume the plan was a bit more broad than just the NYSE.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Software engineering, games mostly. Unity Developers for example get between $80 and $110 depending on area ($110 would be somewhere like San Francisco but you're better off taking the $80 in a place like Austin). The field has high unemployment though, the pay is great but part of that is contingent on keeping a job, you can expect to be out of work for 6 months out of every 2 years because small studios just don't stay open for very long. This is because 75% of products don't make money and there's high investment costs to build them (and because of this, of the ones that are successful most of that money goes to investors that want a very high RoI so studios can never build up capital).

I can see that, but it doesn't look to be a very stable career and I would think talent plays a big roll in who get a job and who doesn't in what looks to be very limited positions. I think the 150k plummer does better.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I can see that, but it doesn't look to be a very stable career and I would think talent plays a big roll in who get a job and who doesn't in what looks to be very limited positions. I think the 150k plummer does better.

It depends, the career itself is quite stable but like all things tech related individual jobs aren't. As for the $150k plumber, that's a great job, if that's what you're after. For me the money really isn't relevant, but I place a really high value on enjoying my work and programming software, in particular software that others are going to enjoy is what I like to do. The fact that it's mentally challenging is also attractive. I would be miserable as a plumber, messing around with pipes and wrenches isn't for me.

a reply to: diggindirt

I don't hate Gates, I don't hate wealthy.

What do I hate the is nefarious and quite toxic methods the majority of the wealthy (in the corporate sector at least) went about getting their wealth by trampling over anyone standing in their way. There's enough evidence out there to prove that Gates was incredibly ruthless to build the Microsoft empire he and his ilk all act like Mafia bosses in their sectors. Or are you saying that it's perfectly acceptable to bully, intimidate, steal others work in order to make money ?

As for your childish comments regarding Oprah being a personal friend, grow up

Also I don't know where you keep pulling this "confiscating 95% of peoples income" from, nobody has said anything about taking 95% of peoples income but judging from your comments I'm not surprised you keep raving on about this made up figure

originally posted by: Aazadan
It was something that I read here (with actual valid links) a couple years ago, around 2010 or 2011 I think. Unfortunately, since then searching for terms like Wall Street and 1% gives a totally different set of results in Google. I'll see if I can find the link for you, I was looking for it last night without much success.

The valid link is the one I supplied which is directly from the NYSE and the exact amount they do in trades each month.

Based on what you posted, I assume the plan was a bit more broad than just the NYSE.

You would need $400-600 trillion in trades annually to generate the 1% you mentioned. There are not even remotely close to that number adding all the exchanges together. It is a bogus plan.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

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.

Where the hell do you live? 1k minimum for rent? My Aunt has a 2 bedroom house in Vegas and her mortgage is less than 900. I know that's not true everywhere, but if you can just convince yourself that you don't HAVE to live in the middle of a giant sprawling metropolis, your rent can be much lower. Also there is this thing called a roommate. If you find them, they pay half the rent.

300/ week for child care? I know of a good way around that: DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CANT AFFORD. Wear a condom, make sure your girl is on the pill, hell, do both. Plenty of places to get free condoms. If you have a condom phobia, and can't keep it in your pants, get your nuts snipped.

300 dollar car payment? You know, if you can convince yourself you don't need a new car every 3 or 4 years, you can typically get decent cars with low monthly payments. I bought a 2003 Ford Taurus (my first car, still driving it) 5 1/3 years ago from a legit dealership. Monthly payments were ~145 a month and insurance slightly less. Bam, I had a car and insurance for less than what you are claiming a car payment alone should cost. I know you really really want that Mustang, but if you can't afford the payments you shouldn't be driving it. Hell, if you can get some decent mechanical knowledge, you can buy a car free and clear that people typically sell and get liability and bam you can have a car for less than a hundred a month, if you can pull yourself to learn something practical in the real world instead of some useless Liberal Arts education.

1000/ month for food, once again, wtf? That translates to 33 dollars in food a day. Here's a mind shattering concept for you: STOP EATING AT APPLEBEES EVERY SINGLE DAY. Learn to freaking cook. Me and my girlfriend probably together spend maybe 400 a month on food, and we shop at Trader Joes, in Orange County California. No excuse for that ridiculous number you threw out.

50,000 a year translates to over 4100 a month, that's more than a thousand dollars take home pay a week, which, when it comes to full time work becomes 26 dollars an hour. Those numbers you are throwing out are ridiculous. I don't claim that no one deserves that, but that is an extremely cushy life. And quite simply, it's not going to be dropped in your lap. 25/ hour? That's something you work hard for and earn. As I said, if one person can pull in 2000/ month, that is much more realistic. If you live with someone (most people do) who can pull that or even slightly less in, that is more than a co for table life, and I'm talking Orange county California, where my big one bedroom costs 1500.

The more I read your post the more you strike me as some kid who has never played a bill in his life, probably not even 18 years old left.

Why don't you let the big boys talk about numbers, when you graduate high school and get your first apartment come back here and talk. You will find you can live on a whole lot less than this ridiculous number you are throwing out.

First, let me apologize for the late response--holidays and family took priority over internet discussions.

Okay, now let's go, if you even have a desire, at this point, to continue...

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyna reply to: SlapMonkey
Yes, yes they were. Not all of them, some go even further back than that, but the current economic hellhole is, for the most part, either their fault, or the people they allowed to ruin it.

*******************

Good. I guess we'll just have to be louder. The Boomers didn't have the internet.

Hold on--you acknowledge my comment that baby boomers are the root of many of our problems in this country, then turn right around and embrace my point that the most vocal millennials espouse similar viewpoints and philosophies, and you think that you should shout louder and from all the rooftops? Do you see the cognitive dissonance, there?

Nice to see that you think climate change, economic inequality, sexuality-based discrimination, so on and so forth, are things no one should be worked up about.

Climate change: Too many unknowns to be able to attribute its main catalyst to being human activity. That doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that we are having some negative effect on our atmosphere, but I think that localized pollution should be a cause championed by more people, as it's something that each individual human being can affect.

Economic inequality: This is something that is a problem, but won't be fixed by socialism. Hell, socialism creates only two classes--the high class and the low class. You think the gap between the "1%" is big now, just wait until you lived under socialist rule. But as this term, "economic inequality," is defined by the average millennial, I just find it to be ignorant, and the "solution" to be based on a view that is incongruent with reality.

Sexuality-based discrimination: All discrimination sucks, but that doesn't mean that people and businesses should be forced to do things like embrace "gender-neutral" bathrooms, or be happy that there is a male-born teenager trying to gain access to their daughters' locker room just because he now claims to identify as a girl.

So on and so forth: Too vague--can't comment.

If I'm not mistaken, it seems as though you are making assumptions about me--maybe even thinking I'm a Republican or Conservative. That's funny.

Actually, you are.

I am the entitled one? Please explain in more words than this childish schoolyard response.

Really? Do we? I guess I missed the memo. Last I checked it was "deserve to not get screwed over because of short-sighted people doing short-sighted things before we were even born."
Oh, and there's probably a bit of "deserve to not be generalised as entitled when fighting for a reasonable hand."
The hypocrisy is mind blowing. I'm entitled? What about you!?

Here's the funny thing in this response--deserving is an entitlement mentality. Nothing is deserved in life, it is earned, and often times through years and decades of climbing this or that proverbial ladder in order to reach where you think you should be.

What you need to do is earn back what you think was taken from you--if it's opportunities, create them for yourself. If you don't want to be generalized, don't apply a generalized description (millennial) to yourself and then run with and embrace the generalized ideology that comes along with that title. But since you're doing that, it's not a generalization, it's an observation appropriately applied to you as an individual. At least, I haven't seen you deny what the generalized millennial says or thinks, so you deserve nothing other than the perception of yourself that you've provided to me and others on this thread: A millennial who espouses the entitlement mentality.

"Waah, waah, increasing the minimum wage will make things cost more, and my own relative value will be decreased."
See what I said about entitlement, earlier?

You assume much, and mischaracterize much as well. I oppose a minimum wage because I do not think that it should be some government whose leader at the time thinks that they know what's best for the current market situation, and in doing so can force the hand of business owners to pay more than what the labor is worth.

It's not about diminishing my own relative value, it's about earning a wage that reflects your (a) skill set, (b) your necessary technical knowledge for the job, and (c) the path taken to achieve the necessary skill set and technical knowledge. Someone--say, a McDonald's employee--who can walk in with zero experience, zero investment in their education (other than what the law forces them to do), and into a job that requires zero technical ability other than what can be taught on the job, has not EARNED the right to be paid a "living wage."

Again, explain how my mindset is centered around being entitled, because I'm quite certain that you don't understand the meaning of the word at this point in the conversation.

Aaand here it comes, the self-righteous "Hard Work" speech. You've already devolved into weird passive aggressiveness.
Though, tell me, was the Civil Rights Movement all about "government protection against hurt feelings?"

No, but your "plight" in life is nothing compared to the civil rights movement. Don't commandeer a righteous movement in order to justify that about which you're talking in this thread. Not even comparable.

Good work ethic? Great thing to advocate. Always nice to have Thumbs up.
Here's the thing though, the deck is so stacked that "good work ethic" is almost valueless. You're blaming us for not having "good work ethic", but this is one of the hardest working generations we have an record. One of the most productive generations.

Stop whining about "the deck" and how it is stacked against you. Go back to the 1930s and see what it's really like to have the deck stacked against you...or what it was like for my Italian great-grandparents when they arrived to New York not knowing the language and having nothing with them. They succeeded. My grandparents who were born in the early 20s (but are now gone) succeeded. All with decks stacked against them...real decks, not ideological ones.

Your whining about decks is a reflection of victimhood, not reality. Yes, your generation has some hurdles--all do, but they're not nearly as bad as you are claiming. Five years ago I'd give you a loose "maybe," but not now.

Again, sorry for the late response, but other things were much more important in my life. How's that for "weird passive-aggressive?"

a reply to: Xtrozero

Sounds about right and can be done, I have.

Problem is that a LOT of people don't do it this way.

They MUST HAVE a new $40K car and a new 60in LED TV and 2-3 PlayStations and...

Buy them first and then complain about the not being able to pay bills.

That is th main issue with this "living wage" idea. Also the fact that if you don't HAVE to work for your dinner many would just sit and collect it.

I don't have a big issue with helping, but the system needs to help those that are trying. Restructure the system to help those trying.

- Your working but still need help? Great here's some help
- Your sick? ( I mean realy sick and not a posser.) Heres some help.
- You don't want to work? Here is a bed and some bread and water--Think about it.
- you been coming back for over 4 years? Lets take a look and see what wrong. You working the system here's your bed a your grull. You have a REAL issue? lets change some things. Don't want to? Here's your bed and grull.

Comes down to we help if they are trying, if not bed and grull untill they want to try or die.

originally posted by: dismanrc

They MUST HAVE a new $40K car and a new 60in LED TV and 2-3 PlayStations and...

Don't forget an IPhone 6. The reason I asked is back in the 80s when I had little it really came down to rent, food, car, gas as my monthly must do's. Today I see the 99%ers without a job, but the got IPhones, computers, internet etc to include daily Star Bucks etc. All things that seem to be a part of the rights and not privileges part of all this.

That is th main issue with this "living wage" idea. Also the fact that if you don't HAVE to work for your dinner many would just sit and collect it.

I don't have a big issue with helping, but the system needs to help those that are trying. Restructure the system to help those trying.

- Your working but still need help? Great here's some help
- Your sick? ( I mean realy sick and not a posser.) Heres some help.
- You don't want to work? Here is a bed and some bread and water--Think about it.
- you been coming back for over 4 years? Lets take a look and see what wrong. You working the system here's your bed a your grull. You have a REAL issue? lets change some things. Don't want to? Here's your bed and grull.

Comes down to we help if they are trying, if not bed and grull untill they want to try or die.

I heard the Mormons will take care of their own, but the work they have you do makes you want to go out and get a real job.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Sounds good to me.

Every one not working getting a gov check to to be spending time:

1. In school learning a TRADE
2. Job hunting with SIGNED paperwork from where they looked.
3. Doing jobs for the government IE picking up trash, washing floors in government buildings

Actually, you would need to set up a maximum wage. Its usually the managers, high skilled workers, and executives who loot the company's coffers. They're the ones that can hold a company hostage, they literally hold a gun to the company and say, "more money or I walk." Golden parachutes and compensation packages for even poor performance.

The system needs money to churn in order for it to work, but if you have no money to create churn then it seizes up.
The same holds true for a rich person who earns more than they can spend, so money sits on the sidelines not being used in a bank account somewhere, where in turn, it creates no churn.

A company can't create jobs if its going broke trying to pay all its high earners ever increasing wages. I've worked at places like that, and the people hit hardest once the company shuts its doors are all the low end staff that probably don't have a few years worth of savings to survive on in between jobs like the high end staff does.

There's plenty of money in the system for everyone, but once a few people start hoarding it all away in some bank account somewhere, then the losers in the system start adding up.

a reply to: CAPT PROTON

You do realize that money that people are "hoarding" by putting it into the banks isn't really sitting there in the bank?
For every ten dollars you deposit in the bank, they loan nine of the dollars or some such figure. The money is actually in circulation, not sitting in a bank. They pay you a few pennies for being able to loan it out to others for a few dollars.

Now if you wanted to cut out the middleman and take the risk of not being paid back, you could put any money you have hoarded in a bank account back into circulation by loaning it out to your friends in need and charging them the same amount of interest the bank is paying you.

Only the folks buying physical precious metal and burying it in the back yard are hoarding money. The paper stuff is just portraits of dead guys. I literally remember when a picture of old Ben would buy a car. Now, it won't pay a month's insurance and you are required by law to purchase it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

They MUST HAVE a new $40K car and a new 60in LED TV and 2-3 PlayStations and...

Don't forget an IPhone 6. The reason I asked is back in the 80s when I had little it really came down to rent, food, car, gas as my monthly must do's. Today I see the 99%ers without a job, but the got IPhones, computers, internet etc to include daily Star Bucks etc. All things that seem to be a part of the rights and not privileges part of all this.

Seems like a very exaggerated blanket statement...

I personally lived on a $870 support payment monthly cheque for months when I was out of work. All it got me was food and rent and nothing else.

I still had a phone, laptop, and car, because my parents bought them for me because I literally would not be able to get a job without it -- and thank God I had them so I did. Last week I made $4400 in fully commission-based sales. Busted my ass for it, but I'd be amazed if you could go ahead and explain to me how I could've done that without a car/laptop/phone? And if you're going to pony me some "oh they only accept top-of-the-line cause hyper-privileged millenials" rhetoric lets just remember that it's lost in the argument when you realize that most of them were gifts from people in their lives who realized they would need them.

Never will you see my buy a 40k car, but the only millennials I know who have one are ones in a similar income bracket. The ones who "NEEEED" a 40k car is definitely the boomers' generation.

That being said, the citation in the OP is ridiculous. If everyone got 25k a year then 25k would just be the new ZERO, because if everyone had 25k guaranteed every year, then 25k wouln't be a figure that is in demand, and all it would cause is a head of lettuce to cost $18 so that people would have the patience to even bother growing it to make a profit.

One of the problems that really needs to be addressed is technologies replacing jobs to the profit of a company alone. For example, buying a 15k machine once rather than paying staff 15k a year is only the correct business decision, but why isn't at least a small increased percentage of the earnings for this machinery taxed and distributed? I mean, here you have automated work, and only a very small number profit from it, and it's the people who had the capital in the first place (in other words, the people who have 15k to throw around without having to worry about next month).

The second big one is obviously exploitation. I know a guy who worked in management in a retail store for 8 years. His branch pulled in $1.9 million a year net profit and they paid him 35k. If you think that is best, then something is seriously wrong. Left unregulated, this is what actually destroys the entire concept of capitalism. Under that schematic, those working the most are paid less than those working less for lower-demanded positions; the exact opposite of capitalist idealism, and it's extremely common.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: CAPT PROTON

You do realize that money that people are "hoarding" by putting it into the banks isn't really sitting there in the bank?
For every ten dollars you deposit in the bank, they loan nine of the dollars or some such figure. The money is actually in circulation, not sitting in a bank. They pay you a few pennies for being able to loan it out to others for a few dollars.

It's not 1945 anymore.

If you think banks need your money to issue loans you're living in an alternate dimension.

They pay you interest to entice you to stick with them for all the glorious benefits that come with their "service" fees.

Money is numbers on a screen and they do not need Bob's to issue a loan to Joe.

originally posted by: DeadFootThat being said, the citation in the OP is ridiculous. If everyone got 25k a year then 25k would just be the new ZERO, because if everyone had 25k guaranteed every year, then 25k wouln't be a figure that is in demand, and all it would cause is a head of lettuce to cost $18 so that people would have the patience to even bother growing it to make a profit.

It's not intuitive but that's not how money works. One persons purchasing power doesn't lessen another persons purchasing power. What matters more than the supply of money is the demand for money and those at the bottom of the income ladder have the highest demand. When you give them money they go out and spend it all, if you give money to those with more income they save or invest it.

This by the way, is why welfare programs are actually budget neutral, and create jobs. People without much money go spend that money locally creating jobs. As it goes through the economy, it is taxed at each step and eventually entirely returns to the government.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DeadFootThat being said, the citation in the OP is ridiculous. If everyone got 25k a year then 25k would just be the new ZERO, because if everyone had 25k guaranteed every year, then 25k wouln't be a figure that is in demand, and all it would cause is a head of lettuce to cost $18 so that people would have the patience to even bother growing it to make a profit.

It's not intuitive but that's not how money works. One persons purchasing power doesn't lessen another persons purchasing power. What matters more than the supply of money is the demand for money and those at the bottom of the income ladder have the highest demand. When you give them money they go out and spend it all, if you give money to those with more income they save or invest it.

It really doesn't matter if you think demand has a heavier weight on the supply/demand price model, if you give everyone 25k a year then the supply of money goes up an the demand for money goes down, devaluing the dollar.

Also, your idea that giving corporate more money guarantees new jobs has been proven fallible many times. If a company gets more money on their net and now they can afford some sort of machinery that replaces a staffed position, then they will absolutely do it, which would eliminate jobs, and it happens all the time.

I personally lived through last year on less than 900 bucks a month. It wasn't comfortable, but I survived. People absolutely do not need 25k a year to live unless they think eating out every day is essential.

originally posted by: DeadFoot
Seems like a very exaggerated blanket statement...

Might be, but I do feel that the young today have a much more expensive view as to what is required to live on, and I think much of it is more of a niceties thn required.

I personally lived on a $870 support payment monthly cheque for months when I was out of work. All it got me was food and rent and nothing else.

Sounds about right since that comes out to well below minimum wage at $5.40 per hour, not sure your point though.

I still had a phone, laptop, and car, because my parents bought them for me because I literally would not be able to get a job without it -- and thank God I had them so I did. Last week I made $4400 in fully commission-based sales. Busted my ass for it, but I'd be amazed if you could go ahead and explain to me how I could've done that without a car/laptop/phone?

Sounds like you needed them to do your job, so are you suggesting every job needs these devices, or these devices are required for a job? I feel slighted that you said nothing about the Star Bucks part though...hehe

Never will you see my buy a 40k car, but the only millennials I know who have one are ones in a similar income bracket. The ones who "NEEEED" a 40k car is definitely the boomers' generation.

I think you missed my point awhile back. I have a lot of stuff I do not need, but want. I could say everything I have is a want..hehe, but then I bought it.

You who made 4400 in a week go get your stuff, have fun, it is the ones that insist they need 20 bucks an hour for flipping hamburgers to live, and I question what is the "to live" part when it costs 20 per hour to meet it as the lowest wage.

The second big one is obviously exploitation. I know a guy who worked in management in a retail store for 8 years.

You lost me at "retail" NEVER WORK RETAIL!

a reply to: DeadFoot
Not living in an alternate dimension at all. I do my business with a local bank. They go by the rules and are among the top two percentile for security.

I've never paid a service fee.

They hand me cash money each month. I go about town distributing it. It's not numbers on a screen to me, it's green stuff in my pocket. Just the sight of it will sometimes work absolute magic on the price of certain purchases.

They make loans on the money I have stored with them. They make far more on those loans than they pay me but they're taking the risk.

It sounds to me like you need to start a business and do it the way you think it should be done.