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: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rabb420
what exactly am i unwilling to change??? oh you must mean i should just leave my mother to die???


I think you are a good son and have chosen to focus on contributing "in kind" to your mother for the moment.

One of the problems with the popular emphasis on class is that most people traverse the economic class ladder in both directions throughout their lives.

We are not fixed to any lot, it is entirely up to us to choose where we want to be and what is important to us at any given time.

That is a significant factor to what I would call freedom.

When circumstances require and you are ready to change your lot, I have no doubt that you will.
edit on 29-12-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Another problem with all this is what exactly is a "basic" income? Is it just enough for food and shelter? Should we include child care in there? What about a car payment allowance and what size of that?

The problem with it is that no matter what amount someone settles on, there will be the next group claiming that the amount is inadequate and we should allot "just a little more" ... "mere pennies in taxes" ... in order to add this or that amount for this or that thing they consider to be "basic."

Once the politicos have that to chew on, it'll be like that tax with endless revisions made to appease or buy voted from this or that constituency group as part of their new entitlement.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
As long as the corporations run the country, don't expect it to be any different. A system has been created which basically keeps them in control unless people want to live differently for a while to effect a change,


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Bloody nonsense.

Living now is more expensive than it has ever been in the west, and wages are tracking so far below the cost of actually living, that some poor souls are working three jobs to be able to afford to FAIL to make ends meet. The rule of thumb ought to be that no matter what, if you have work, then you can afford to live. Anything less than that is unacceptable, and always was.

Our parents, our grandparents, and their parents and grandparents did not slave away at their toils in the hopes that some day, their descendants would be able to merely exist, as they did back in history, near shackled to their workstations, or taken up into the poor house.

They did these things so that some day their descendants might stand free of the tyrannical fist of economy, and find a better way to live. We either embrace the path they set us upon, or stagnate and perish.

Now, the numbers may not bear up, and until they do, there will be problems ahead for any who might want to say "hang it all, let's all have some damned free money" and I personally disagree with the principle. However, governments need to realise that if unemployment in any area reaches problem levels, THE GOVERNMENT need to ensure that properly paid jobs are imported or created for EACH CITIZEN TO DO! It is not the job of a powerless, penniless person to create money for themselves out of no where. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that there is enough opportunity for EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO COULD USE IT TO HAVE SOME!



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Again, how do you make sure that happens?

I've lived through artificial wage increases. They never work as advertised and do have every ill effect people say they do.

So how do you make sure people have enough and what is "enough?"

Also keep in mind that cost of living varies widely, so can you take that into account or are we talking flat rate you want?



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Instead of a base wage I would suggest a base family. Everyone gets a family, a lineage, a support system, an inheritance, and no one has to pay anything except love. From better families come better upbringings, better communities, better neighborhoods, better opportunities, and so on.

It turns out to be an irony to decry those who seek money while at the same time demanding it.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In the sake of full disclosure I will reveal that my last name is Vanderbilt-Rockefeller-Rothschild.

Sadly my first name is Schmendrick, but hey, the oodles of loot make up for a crappy first name.






edit on 29-12-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: never go in against a Sicilian with death is on the line



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
This wouldn't be a bad idea if it actually served the people it was meant to and corporations didn't use it like obamacare as an excuse to cut benefits/salaries and outsource jobs. People living on federal aid aren't making ends meet. They are dying a slow death. The little aid they get only extends the suffering.

The problem with any social program in this country is the math is never right, and it never will be. It cant be. The reason is that we don't even know how many people are here. Decades with an open border so commonly crossed we installed drinking fountains along the way so people didn't get too thirsty while entering the country illegally left us with a truly unknown number of residents.

We try to put together figures for something like this. We look at how many taxpayers there are and how much money they generate for the government. Then we "guess" how many people are going to need program and how much that will cost. That tells us how much money from each taxpayer dollar has to go toward that project. The problem is that for every person we think needs the project there are several trying to take advantage of it. And of course the project runs out of money and TPTB sit there scratching their empty heads not knowing how it failed. And that doesn't even give a nod to the corruption that also takes a toll on every dollar spent.

We need to stop illegal immigration, get every single person on US soil into the tax system, get an 'accurate' idea of how much tax revenue we actually have to work with compared to the percentage of the population who will use the programs, THEN consider what we can fund and for how many.

Congress really needs to get its s*&^t together. When the bucket is full of holes - making more trips to the well doesn't solve the problem. It only dries up the well faster.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.


Leave? And go where? Who are they going to do business with? Themselves? And what's to stop smaller upstarts from moving into the vacuum? They're really going to pull an Eric Cartman and say, "Screw you guys!" ...?

The rich need the middle class to keep themselves rich. The problem is they keep chipping away at their own foundation (the middle class) and using what they take to build higher and higher. Eventually the foundation is going to give out and the entire tower will collapse. It's not sustainable.
edit on 29-12-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Teddy916

But, those items you just mentioned happened when I was coming of age. Only then, it was the threat of the cold war and whether you would ACTUALLY wake up in the morning and not be nuked overnight. Civil and racial tensions? Two words, Watts Riots. Economic recessions, did you ever have to experience gas rationing? Meaning gas stations RAN OUT of gasoline and shut down. As for terrorism, there were more airline hijackings then than now, and a little event in Munich at the Olympics might be worth a read for you too.

I was a cynical as they come at the time regarding our "leaders". They were either getting shot and killed, or were lying, cheating and stealing elections. I was sure we were going to blow ourselves up, anarchy and self-reliance was on the rise. Religious cults were everywhere, and these resulted in people killing themselves as they were convinced the end of the world was nigh.

Sound familiar?


This bears repeating.

Duck and Cover!
Mortgage interest rates at 11%
Watergate
Wounded Knee
Waiting for hours in lines at the gas station
Wage & Price controls
Four bedroom, cold, drafty farmhouse with 8 college kids living there---with ONE bathroom.

It didn't kill us. We got through it, and most of us learned quite a bit from those struggles. We would have eaten dirt and slept in the park rather than beg our parents for money. Independence was our goal---cable tv was something we could watch when we got old and could afford it.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Earning, working towards a successful life is something that was done in the past.

Why work when you can whine and get it for free?

The drive to create, innovate, invent, build, has gone. Instead we have skinny-jean, chin-bearded punks demanding something for nothing.

They can go rot.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not gone, but it is being strangled. And more and more are content to sit back and scream to have it handed to them rather than try to fight what is an increasingly difficult battle.

Government needs to get its bootheel off of all our throats so we can get back to the business of living our lives again.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: forkedtongue
Life is not about fair. Life is not about whining and having things handed to you.

I've worked my ass off.

If you want what I've got, so should you.


Well I agree with you about life not being fair.

Getting a decent wage usually has nothing to do with what you know, but rather who you know.

Studying hard and working your arse off, is more likely to just give you a stroke at 54 years old, than it is to help you earn a decent wage... Plenty of people work hard there whole life and end up with nothing.

I spent most my 20's holidaying around the country on welfare payments and laying around the house watching the sopranos, breaking bad and stupid US sitcom reruns... Then I just rocked back into Melbourne recently and hooked up a job with my brother carting sheet metal for $38.50 an hour.

I know people who went to university and have worked hard there whole lives and still don't get that.

Its a delusional myth that people end up on a unlivable wage simply because they didn't work hard enough. People end up on an unlivable wage in the US (and other countries) simply because the minimum wage is pathetic... plain and simple.

All employers should be forced to pay a livable minimum wage to there employee's. If they can't afford to do that, then they should acknowledge the fact they are failures in business and piss off back to earning wages themselves!

That's what it comes down to. Anyone who is making a living by paying there employee's 15k (US) a year should be ashamed of themselves, since they are simply exploiting the misery and misfortune of others.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I am talking about a minimum of a living wage, which is fixed for every person at x + 5 or 10 percent, where x is what it costs to pay rent, buy food, water, energy, and data access, pay insurance on both ones self and ones family, not to mention ones property, pay taxes and rates...the unavoidable consequences of life. That living wage should be tracked to the individual, their location.

So, for example, if cost of living in town A, is higher than in town B, then those working in town A should be getting more than those in town B.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not gone, but it is being strangled. And more and more are content to sit back and scream to have it handed to them rather than try to fight what is an increasingly difficult battle.

Government needs to get its bootheel off of all our throats so we can get back to the business of living our lives again.



You say government has a bootheel on our throats, but these entitled wastebags welcome servitude. They have no drive, ambition, work ethic, or moral baseline.

They'd sell their mother for a government check.

These are the products of government.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides

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.


Yes, but in many cases, to change your lot in life you need money. Maybe you need tuition fees to go to night classes or full-time day education. Even buying a desktop PC for learning costs a few hundred pounds.

Living in the UK isn't cheap. The biggest obstacle for anyone to do anything is (1) You lose your benefits and council house if you take a job. In the past, you only got a council house if you were "respectable", had a stable job and references. Council homes were originally intended for those people who had lost homes during the bombings in World War II. Unfortunately, these become means-tested which forced people to do outdo each other in terms of social deprivation in order to qualify (get points if you are; single teenage mother + number of children - savings - relatives).

(2) If you are unemployed and rent or own somewhere, you are exempt from paying council tax, but the minute you find even part-time work, suddenly you have pay a full whack of council tax. That can outweigh any gain from working.

We're not building enough homes because various invested interests want to maintain a shortage in order to keep house prices up. We've got enough problems with the properties that are being built in floodplains.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ketsuko

I am talking about a minimum of a living wage, which is fixed for every person at x + 5 or 10 percent, where x is what it costs to pay rent, buy food, water, energy, and data access, pay insurance on both ones self and ones family, not to mention ones property, pay taxes and rates...the unavoidable consequences of life. That living wage should be tracked to the individual, their location.

So, for example, if cost of living in town A, is higher than in town B, then those working in town A should be getting more than those in town B.

TrueBrit you are a smart guy, you know it is not that simple. In your example, would I be prevented from living in town B (where the cost of living is lower) and working in town A (with the higher wage)? That would maximize my dollar and increase my buying power with each dollar spend in town B.

And with the Internet and telecommuting (which I do regularly) there is no geospacial or extra commuting cost associated with that disparity between home and work locations anymore.


edit on 12/29/2015 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you on minimum wage?

If you job can be done from home, over the net, I doubt it. And yes, you COULD work a whole hour or more away by car if you wanted, but given a minimum wage of x + 5 or ten percent, you would not be under pressure to do so. You might even choose to move there for work permanently, reducing the need to travel entirely!



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I love how when someone comes up with a cost-cutting measure that actually benefits people, the naysayers bitch louder. This translates to they'd prefer to waste the money going into the bloated system they bitch about in the first place. Mental gymnastics at it's best. Or stupidity, you decide.


originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: boncho

Two employees hired to do the same job. One sits there and surfs her smart phone most of the day while the other works. You pay them both exactly the same.

Is that fair or right? One is actually working hard at what you hired her to do while the other is slacking off and not doing the job, but you pay them the same.

But hey ... yeah, let's just give everyone the same basic income.


Hey, here's a novel idea. Fire her damn ass. At my husband's company, it doesn't matter if you're low level or high level -- if you are caught dicking around on the clock, or with your phone in hand, you're fired. Period, no exceptions.
For example, this past month, an engineer was fired for sleeping on the clock, and several others (machine op, tech & a someone in admin) were fired before the end of the day for being on their phones playing games on the clock. So yeah, let's be realistic here. If you're sitting on your ass milking the clock without actually working, you're fired. End of discussion.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you on minimum wage?

If you job can be done from home, over the net, I doubt it. And yes, you COULD work a whole hour or more away by car if you wanted, but given a minimum wage of x + 5 or ten percent, you would not be under pressure to do so. You might even choose to move there for work permanently, reducing the need to travel entirely!


Telecommuting is not only internet related, you know. What if that job was as a telemarketer, or a position taking food orders (some of the drive thru fast food joints actually outsource that job to India now). And if I do not have to commute, perhaps I do not need to own a vehicle, I could take public transport in-town to do shopping, etc.. The allotment for the car now can be used elsewhere I wish.


edit on 12/29/2015 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join