You think you deserve to earn more than $200k a year?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


How is it exploitation if a) the employer benefits, b) the employee benefits and c) the consumer benefits?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

I think you miss what i'm saying. I beleive that if you work hard then you should recieve a hard workers wage.

Hard work doesn't benefit society - efficient work does. I can work really hard fixing your lawnmower using nothing but my teeth and bare hands. I will work far harder than anyone with a set of tools designed for the job. I do not deserve a higher wage because I work harder. The person who makes the wrenches deserves being paid for making my job to fix lawnmowers easier, and I deserve to be paid for fixing your lawnmower because it saved you time and frustration because you're not familiar with fixing a lawnmower.

I am merely pointing out how the system exploits people.

This is merely because you think like an employee. You don't think like an entrepreneur. There's a fundamental difference - an entrepreneur wants to make something (a product or service) that other people want and improve their standard of living. An employee wants a secure paycheck in exchange for their time serving a contract.

The problem is that the employee mentality has become entwined with the entitlement mentality. Rather than realizing you are being compensated for your assistance in creating things that others want and need, you feel you are entitled to a larger pay check because you go home tired at the end of the day while the owner shows up, shakes hands, and has a business meeting at the country club.

These people in factories DO work hard, and there reward is simply a roof over their heads and an adequate amount of food

Where are you working, or who is ripping you off with rent? Factory wage here, relative to cost of living, is quite nice. Room up with some buddies and you can bank fairly nicely.

This in a time when we are so technologically advanced that we really DONT need this system to which someone must be empoverished (Living on the basics) so that someone else can be lifted above the others and have a CONSIDERATE amount of expendable income.

The free market (not exactly the weird psuedo-free-socialist economy we have in the U.S.) is the natural evolution of small-community survival (the basis for pro-communist arguments).

You are also deluded. Those with wealth are not taking it from others. Wealth is impossible to take by force. Wealth is productivity and value to the community. It is not a finite resource - I can create wealth by providing a service to others that allows them to spend more time focusing on things that matter to them (less time away from jobs, better performance in their job, more time with the family, etc). Wealth exists apart from capital and will persist whether the currency in use today crashes or not.

You create wealth by working at a factory or wherever you work. You assist in creating wealth that is shared amongst all who work at the company. That company would not exist were it not for the people with the vision and means to create it (which would include the investors). Of course they are going to use the wealth they created to improve their own standard of living.

I am in no way condoning communism, but merely saying that the system we have in place is outdated, counter-productive and unnessesary.

The system we have in place today is what happens when the government is placed in charge of 'sharing' and 'protecting the consumer.' Laws and regulations set the precedent for government intrusion into business and thereby creates an atmosphere where larger businesses can lobby for laws that make starting up in that market prohibitive and competing against larger companies nearly impossible.

Look no further than the healthcare industry - the most heavily regulated and "protected" of all consumer markets. Then look at the technology market - where cost has been dropping relative to GDP consistently since the market sprang up, and the value is growing by leaps and bounds. A $400 computer beats a multi-million dollar supercomputer in the 80s.

Despite the recession - technology prices continue to drop.

It's a perfect example of the free market and how it ultimately works to the benefit of the consumer. Nothing in the computer-technology world has come from government initiative. The government can't even lay serious claim to the internet (other than subsidizing the initial development of the continent-wide phone switching networks in the 30s). The ATX form-factor, the x86 architecture, OpenGL, Direct3D, Plug'nPlay, USB, PCI, PCI-E, Hyper-Transport, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, Blue Tooth, etc - all of them have come from companies working collectively or individually.

The Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) has more to do with most of those developments than -any- government action. It is also a perfect example of free-market alternatives to government standards (so are ISO 9000 and 9001 certifications).

When i say share the wealth, i mean give people the option to work 40 hours, earn a decent income and not have to struggle all the way through life.

There's an inherent problem with this. Let's say we give twice as many people jobs stocking shelves at the same pay rate. This increases operational overhead. Already, businesses work on about a 2-5% profit margin; Bringing in more workers than necessary increases the price that must be charged for the commodities sold at the store.

This increases costs of living, which means the cost of "not having to struggle" goes up, and we increase the wages, further increasing costs, and we're in a vicious cycle.

You have to have the job to give someone, first. If you don't have a need for the job, then it doesn't make sense to hire someone for it.

There's also the fact that minimum-wage jobs are not supposed to be jobs you live off of. They are meant to be jobs you have as supplements to another higher-earning job, or as a transitional job. In general, you are -supposed- to progress into higher skilled jobs or create your own business or practice and possibly create more jobs.

I dont understand why many people believe that that concept is impossible.
Everyone who works works hard - You have to. If you dont you loose your job. simple.

It's impossible because hard work doesn't benefit society.

I know this is confusing to you - but let's take a look at the plow, for example. You can work hard digging around in the dirt with your hands, trying to make a garden/farm. You can pick up a shovel, and your job is considerably easier. You could also take a plow and attach it to a mule, and your job is far easier. You can now work the same amount of land in far less time and effort - freeing you up to do other things, like milk a cow or see how edible that chicken egg is. With a little extra time and effort - he can grow more food, enough for him and others (such as the guy who made the plow).

Thus begins the economy.

It's not about hard work. It's about creating things that someone needs and/or wants. Yes - some of the things involved in this will be labor tasks. This doesn't necessarily mean you should be entitled to a standard of living. It means you are given compensation for your efforts that can be exchanged with others as you see fit.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

And what precisely do you consider a decent wage?

Should a low to no skill toilet scrubber earn as much as a carpenter? As a doctor?

If people are unhappy with their wages they are free to either find other employment that compensates them an amount they find acceptable, or obtain the skills necessary to make themselves more marketable.

I dont really work hard at all, and make a pretty damn good living.

Firstly, a toilet scrubber i dont feel should earn as much as a doctor or someone with a vauble skill, But tell me why that said person should earn a wage that is ONLY enough to pay the bills and nothing more? What exactly is the reward in working when you cant spend what you earn on consumer items such as clothes?
as for people bettering themselves, you know as well as me you need education to do that and to go back to school as an adult is one hell of an expensive thing to do - which is why people dont do it, they have no money to PAY for a course to better themselves, therefore the working class are increasingly boxed in and told to shutup.
I have yet to have someone explain to me why people cant work 40hrs a week and earn a decent wage with a tidy expendable income?

reply to post by 547000


Would you work 14hr shifts for the rest of your life just so you could put a roof over your head and eat 2 meals a day? Its exploitation of a humans need to survive.

reply to post by Aim64C


I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time to give an indepth reply to my post and try and show me the POV from the side of the better off.
Firstly, i cant say i agree with anything you said - Infact i was slightly insulted when you started talking about how the employee thinks they have "Entitlement" to a decent wage. From that standpoint, you obviously think the Employer as an "entitlement" to exploit the fact that everyone needs money to live. By the sounds of if, you believe that society NEEDS a class of people that consistently struggle through life so that you and your buddies can live comfortably. Conservatism comes to mind.

And i appreciate you having a crack at my 40hrs a week question, but i think you answered it wrong. you spoke of the employer doubling the amount of workers he had. I was thinking more along the lines of the employer employing the amount of people they needed and paying them a proper wage - Enough to cover bills with a tidy amount of expendible income.

I can see us being at opposite ends of the spectrum and i hope you dont find my reply offensive. I guess i am typical marxist and you are a typical functionalist so i guess we shall have to agree to disagree? But again, thank you for taking the time to reply.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Are employees exploiting employers' need to get a product delivered?

reply to post by 547000


I wouldnt agree so, no. How exactly to employee's exploit employers?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


They exploit the need employer's have to make products, without which the business couldn't survive and the employers would probably have a lack of funds too. The employee needs what the employer provides and the employer needs what the employee provides. Why can't the employers also complain about exploitation when the employees demand pay because they are using the employer's need to make a good or provide a service to earn money too?

reply to post by 547000


Why cant the relationship be equally beneficial to both? The employer makes goods and sells at a profit, the Employee makes a decent living selling their labour to the employer? Why should one benefit more then the other?

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

But tell me why that said person should earn a wage that is ONLY enough to pay the bills and nothing more?

Because thats all a toilet scrubber job is worth. No skill jobs like that dont demand a higher wage because there is no skill involved in it.

What exactly is the reward in working when you cant spend what you earn on consumer items such as clothes?

A roof over your head, food in your stomach, and clothes on your back. Yes, I said clothes. There are plenty of thrift stores in every town with very cheap clothes.

as for people bettering themselves, you know as well as me you need education to do that

100% wrong. Many skills in demand can be self taught. All it takes is effort. Hell, I taught myself how to code PHP in a few weeks and if I ever needed something to fall back on, there are plenty of freelance coding jobs available.

I have yet to have someone explain to me why people cant work 40hrs a week and earn a decent wage with a tidy expendable income?

They can, as long as they have marketable skills that people are willing to pay for.

There is no reason why a burger flipper should earn enough to pay all their bills, plus have a "tidy" expendable income. If things were your way, prices would increase exponentially.

reply to post by byteshertz


I think the large income is justified for those who have spent huge sums getting an education. Take a doctor for example. Many graduating doctors won't pay back their student loans for decades. Yeah, there is only so much of the pie for everybody and many are getting too much. But don't lump all the high wage earners into one catagory.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

But tell me why that said person should earn a wage that is ONLY enough to pay the bills and nothing more?

Because thats all a toilet scrubber job is worth. No skill jobs like that dont demand a higher wage because there is no skill involved in it.

I cant believe your lack of regard for another humans well being. It makes me sick that people think this kind of answer is acceptible. Your inducing poverty on people for simple fact that scrubbing a toilet isnt a skilled task, but would you do it for 40hrs a week just so you could pay the bills and nothing more?

What exactly is the reward in working when you cant spend what you earn on consumer items such as clothes?

A roof over your head, food in your stomach, and clothes on your back. Yes, I said clothes. There are plenty of thrift stores in every town with very cheap clothes.

Again, reinforcing the notion that you believe people should struggle through life so others can live more then comfortably? You agree with the notion that people should waste their lives scrubbing toilets and should have nothing to show for it when they die/retire?

as for people bettering themselves, you know as well as me you need education to do that

100% wrong. Many skills in demand can be self taught. All it takes is effort. Hell, I taught myself how to code PHP in a few weeks and if I ever needed something to fall back on, there are plenty of freelance coding jobs available.

You cant apply for a job with an electrics company and have no formal qualifications, they would laugh at you. What you suggest is self-teching and then working here and there - Work would then not be a constant thing, but rather add stress to peoples lives as they "dont know where the next bit of money is coming from" What a happy alternative.

I have yet to have someone explain to me why people cant work 40hrs a week and earn a decent wage with a tidy expendable income?

They can, as long as they have marketable skills that people are willing to pay for.

There is no reason why a burger flipper should earn enough to pay all their bills, plus have a "tidy" expendable income. If things were your way, prices would increase exponentially.

again, another comment supporting a class system and spitting on the rights of a human being.

I'm sorry to hear that you think its acceptible for people to be worked like dogs and given only enough to pay their bills, perhaps this attitude is why so many people choose to marry into the welfare family.

The majority of trade schools and colleges offer financial aid, or can help applicants find money for schooling. If someone doesn't want to work for minimum wage, then they shouldn't have a minimum wage education. Although, an education doesn't guarantee success it helps one not become a toilet scrubber. The type of degree one has plays a critical part in their salary as well. When I hire people I don't base their wage on how many bills they have. IT'S their responsibility to live with in their means. As an employer its not my job to correct someones financial mishaps.

Originally posted by topdog30
The majority of trade schools and colleges offer financial aid, or can help applicants find money for schooling. If someone doesn't want to work for minimum wage, then they shouldn't have a minimum wage education.

I'll take it that that is in america, so i wouldnt know if they do or not. If they do then good, thats the kind of help people need. However, in the UK they have an cut off point for such "Aid" at around the 25 mark. As for education, here you go to state school because WORKING CLASS PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO UPMARKET SCHOOLS. The reason they cannot afford it is because employers only pay the absolute minimum - Enough to pay your bills and nothing more. What i find hilarious is the governments cutting of EMA for 16-19 year olds in FT A-level course's - Good old conservatives making sure the working class stay working class.

Although, an education doesn't guarantee success it helps one not become a toilet scrubber. The type of degree one has plays a critical part in their salary as well. When I hire people I don't base their wage on how many bills they have. IT'S their responsibility to live with in their means. As an employer its not my job to correct someones financial mishaps.

I wouldnt expect an employer to base someones wage on how many bills they have, i agree fully that it is up to the employee to manage their financies responciably. My arguement is simply that the unskilled, who work hard for 40hrs a week, should be given a decent wage that does more then just pays the bills. I dont understand why society is intent on having a class of people who consistently struggle through life and then pass that same struggle down to their children (cycle of deprivation)

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time to give an indepth reply to my post and try and show me the POV from the side of the better off.

I'm not better off. I find myself wondering how I'm going to pay my own bills past February. The job I have now doesn't have the hours - and the reserves is a nice supplement for two days of meet&greet paperwork, but it just barely covers my bills before figuring in food and practical expenses. I'm hoping I can get on at one of the factories around here - and I've been submitting applications and calling, but I think they are waiting to hire until after the first of the year when they get their orders in.

I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. My father never made over 100K per year - probably never made over 60K. His experience and knowledge on aluminum die-casting was typically worth quite a bit more than what he was getting paid. Not to mention his management skills turned that factory into the best out of the corporation (got them ISO 9000 certified and cleared the random audits with flying colors while the main branch barely scraped by). He was easily worth 200K to the company.

The factory burned back in '09, was hot enough to warp some gas-fittings they were making (still have some pictures of it). After giving the impression that the plan was to rebuild the factory and even take the opportunity to expand it (expanding while operations are ongoing is, interestingly enough, more expensive than when the whole works is shut down); the owners decided to close that plant and relocate operations back to where the main branches were located (Fenton). This, honestly, makes no sense as there's no room to expand, no local infrastructure to exploit (the plant here sat right near some railway stations and a municipal airport), and... well - we'll put that old gripe to rest, as it's in the past.

Anyway - they were pretty much counting on him moving in to take over management of the new factory. They caught on pretty quick that they were turning it into a circus (no die-change facilities being built into a new factory, for example), and that it wasn't going to go well for them. Supposedly, my dad and uncle were getting him set up to go into consulting, as opposed to management. He died a month before he was to retire.

The whole point of this? Employers are people. Sometimes they are smart enough to realize when the people working for them are worth more than they are being paid. Sometimes they aren't.

Firstly, i cant say i agree with anything you said - Infact i was slightly insulted when you started talking about how the employee thinks they have "Entitlement" to a decent wage. From that standpoint, you obviously think the Employer as an "entitlement" to exploit the fact that everyone needs money to live.

The employer doesn't need to work with anyone. Someone with capital to invest in a business can merely invest in stocks, bonds, or live off of the interest accruing in an account. Someone with a private practice doesn't have to take the risk of expanding and bringing on additional workers.

What the employer is entitled to is the right to decide who they want to work for them and how much to pay that person for the job. If they want to give you a hundred dollars an hour to sweep the floor, and they can afford that from a business standpoint, then the more power to them.

The employer owns or is given the authority to employ someone by the business. The employee agrees to exchange their time and effort for monetary compensation at an agreed-upon rate. You are entitled the right to reject the offer and search elsewhere, just as the employer is.

By the sounds of if, you believe that society NEEDS a class of people that consistently struggle through life so that you and your buddies can live comfortably. Conservatism comes to mind.

Society needs people of all skills and abilities to contribute in order to function. That is not the same as saying all skills and abilities are worth the same to society. It will sound cold - but someone with an IQ of 90 who has a very narrow range of functionality that falls within the "can be done by anyone" category is simply not worth the same as someone who doesn't just excel at menial tasks and actively learns about the system and is willing to propose and try changes to make things more efficient. And even that variety of person is less valuable than someone with a vision for a product or service (or system of products and services) and the will/capability to make that happen.

Read up on Amazon.com and its beginnings. Started as a few teenagers with an idea and going around to ask people for some help funding it (these would be called "investors" - those evil people who make money by buying and selling holdings).

And i appreciate you having a crack at my 40hrs a week question, but i think you answered it wrong. you spoke of the employer doubling the amount of workers he had. I was thinking more along the lines of the employer employing the amount of people they needed and paying them a proper wage - Enough to cover bills with a tidy amount of expendible income.

Why?

This is the belief that you are entitled to a standard of living. It is simply not a functional idea.

Let's break it down to Communism's roots to demonstrate.

We have a small community - you have a carpenter, a farmer, a blacksmith, baker, and hunter. It should be fairly obvious to see how these people work to support each other. Their contributions to this small society are noticeable by all in this very small community. The farmer gives his food to the others because he clearly sees and understands how their services are required for him to maintain the standard of living he enjoys, today.

An outsider from another town comes wandering down the road and stops by. Usually, such people were the connections these small towns had to the outside world - and would be provided a place to sleep and a meal both out of hospitality and as a payment for news of the world. It was the first iteration of the "information economy" - if you will.

However, let's say other people decide to do this. Before long, the road turns into a 'highway' of travelers going through this town - perhaps on their way to larger towns, or just because they've heard the locals bake good pies.

With so many people regularly passing through town - the value of information suddenly drops. Anyone and everyone is sharing stories of the outside, and there are simply too many people to just give them all beds and food. The service provided is no longer of such a value that it is considered worth a provision of food and quarters for the night. Travelers will then have to provide something else of value and worth - a service (such as a healer or doctor), monetary compensation (a bartering standard), or some unique goods to barter (such as foods, clothing, etc).

The exchange of information is necessary in a functional society. Just like it is necessary for someone to clear your table after you are done eating at a restaurant (one of the jobs I do). However - articulated as my intellect is, smart as I am, and capable as I am - the job I am doing can be done, almost literally, by a trained monkey. I am simply less likely to freak out and throw feces at the customers (waitresses, on the other hand.... ... sorry - gotta pick on the waitresses - like the Navy having to pick on the (Ch)Air Force).

Now - let's not get too up in arms about this. Compare what I can afford working that job, today, versus what I could afford working that job 30 years ago. Granted - minimum wage has gone up, but so has cost of living (the two are related, and the derka-der of a government we have doesn't seem to realize this). In either case - I can afford a cell phone. My friends have been working similar wages for a lot longer than I have - and they can afford computers, a WoW subscription (no, I don't participate - I already lose enough of my soul each day to the computer and internet), and a rather nice apartment.

You would have been living in far worse tenant housing or with family working the same job 30 years ago, and be unable to afford college tuition fees. Cell phones didn't really exist - but computers were pretty much non-existent in the average house-hold. The laptop I'm using surpasses artistic representations of technology in this time period - and broadband would simply blow the mind of anyone in the 80s - back when ten-megabyte hard drives were the size of a filing cabinet... a flash-drive with a chip the size of your thumb-nail holding 16 gigs? I remember my dad talking about when he first saw a hundred-megabyte hard drive and didn't understand how anyone could possibly use that much hard drive space.

A microwave costs anywhere from $30 to $2000 - depending upon whether you want one that can open up portals to other dimensions, or not (hell, I don't know what a $2K microwave actually does that's worth that much). You can get 32" HD televisions for under $400 that would have cost about $700 three years ago (I know - I looked, and the models available today for

I lived on only minimal rent and bills money for most of my life. Never made more than $24,000 a year until a few years ago. Never got married and never had a kid. The problem is when people feel the need to reproduce, and then they have no perspective of what $200,000 a year could do for a single person... or even a couple... or even a couple with ONE child. They're also trying to sack away large chunks of money for college (which is now useless) and beyond-social-security retirement funds.

$200,000 Per Year?...

$70,000 Taxes
$36,000 for Man and woman
$36,000 for 3 kids
$36,000 Retirement
$10,000 college fund for 3 kids
$12,000 Fun money

Wah! I have no money!

Most people can't resist the desire to breed and live beyond their means... even going into DEBT beyond the figures above. The truth is, 49% of people have "Below Average Intelligence."

Edward Slayton

This would not even be a question if the hoarders in the world weren't keeping 95% of all our resources locked up like a drum... False scarcity leading to false senses of insecurity, gotta keep working gotta make that money or you don't eat or have a roof over the head, While there are thousands literally thousands of homes no one can afford sitting empty locked up in the control of hoarders, while the government tells the farmers to burn 40 % of their crops that overproduced. This is dispicabe and this is the real crime. The fallcy of scarcity, and the falsified money that is backed by absolutely ZERO anything of worth. It's a big scam you are all debating over and what a way to keep the divisions wide and very productive for TPTB ultimate goal, Making everyone a whore and a slave for money.

reply to post by byteshertz


The problem with this world is that spirituality has been replaced with an illusion which pretends to be spirituality but is actually materialism, cleverly disguised I might add.

Our physical world, including wealth, jobs, entertainment, any Earthly thing you can imagine, is based on pyramids and triangles. Spirituality is designed to let people escape from these limits, which includes drug use (not abuse), expression of creativity, sex, and basically any practice utilizing the id of human psyche. But these things have all been limited by legal boundaries, taxation, repression, and basically any factor focusing on the ego. When people don't buy into materialism, they are sold religion in favor of spirituality, which represses the superego (unreachable through regular old materialism).

I say all this to say that the rich and the poor have no real equalizer; the only perceived equalizer is based on a manipulated illusion of power.

reply to post by EdwardSlayton


So do you beleive that 49% should be left to struggle and barely survive? I don't know what side you are going for/against?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

I cant believe your lack of regard for another humans well being. It makes me sick that people think this kind of answer is acceptible. Your inducing poverty on people for simple fact that scrubbing a toilet isnt a skilled task, but would you do it for 40hrs a week just so you could pay the bills and nothing more?

Has nothing to do with a lack of regard for one's well-being. 95% of the population is fit for scrubbing toilets and sweeping floors. "Back in the day" - you took up an apprenticeship with a person who knew a trade. You did all of their menial tasks so they could focus on the trade at hand, in exchange, you were taught the trade and your living relatively provided for (you were aiding in providing for both your living and the trade-master's living).

The difference between now and then is that a person scrubbing toilets and sweeping floors is not given that job with the expectation they will learn a specific trade within that business. It is given as-is. A tradesman would only give an apprenticeship to someone he saw had the potential to learn the trade and make his employment of this person worthwhile. Now, however, you are often scrubbing floors and toilets while learning a trade at a trade-school, internship, or going for a college degree.

You are free to scrub anyone's floors, but you must put forth the effort to improve yourself. That is not going to be handed to you. Nor should it ever be handed to you.

Again, reinforcing the notion that you believe people should struggle through life so others can live more then comfortably? You agree with the notion that people should waste their lives scrubbing toilets and should have nothing to show for it when they die/retire?

If you're "wasting your life" scrubbing toilets and wish to retire off of that job, the problem is not the job, it's the person working it. Look - I know things suck when you're working menial tasks for just enough pay, or sometimes not quite enough. That's why you improve yourself so that you can get a better job or create your own.

Providing a service that 95% of the population is fit for and that has only entry level requirements is not the way to prosperity. It has nothing to do with being screwed by the system and everything to do with slighting yourself.

You cant apply for a job with an electrics company and have no formal qualifications, they would laugh at you. What you suggest is self-teching and then working here and there - Work would then not be a constant thing, but rather add stress to peoples lives as they "dont know where the next bit of money is coming from" What a happy alternative.

You can apply with any company you want. They may or may not pick you for an interview. They may or may not pick you for the job. I've seen a number of people get into skilled jobs that were self-taught and didn't have much in the line of formal qualifications. In a number of cases - these companies paid to send these people to classes to get a formal education.

There are also apprenticeships to consider - those allow you to build a work history and experience - very important in fields like electrical maintenance, where a lot of people have private practices. I have the knowledge and experience in electronics to install all manners of home wiring - from electrical conduits to fiber optic data/audio lines. I could do it for half the price a lot of the people around here charge and still make a total killing. The problem would be a lack of affiliation with trade organizations and a history of work (IE - people from five years ago who are still happy with the job I did and haven't had any problems).

There are always options. Talk to people - make friends at church (or, whatever community affiliations you may have) - chances are you'll rub elbows with some relatively powerful people and families that will be more than happy to help you help yourself. They won't necessarily roll out the red carpet for you - but they've got connections. Never underestimate the power of a good word.

I'm sorry to hear that you think its acceptible for people to be worked like dogs and given only enough to pay their bills, perhaps this attitude is why so many people choose to marry into the welfare family.

The problem is people trying to live beyond their means.

I would -love- to have my own house right now, with a hobby room, a small machine shop, and a nice garden with a green-house out back. I -could- afford a house of that nature on factory wage around here. I would make just enough to pay the bills and stay alive - and barely be able to enjoy my hobbies - but I'd do okay.

I learned something in the military. Many hands make light work. Share the bills with someone, and it's a quick way to double or even triple your house-hold income.

I'm not sure how you guys across the pond do it - but, here in America, college students room up and share the costs of living so that they can afford college. They also use their friends at school to help with in getting jobs (entry level and non-entry level positions). It makes life more fun and enjoyable - sure - it's not my ideal living style - but it's far better than trying to live in a manner that I cannot afford.

Learn to live cheap and save. Then you can either invest or retire with some nice things later on.

Making factory wage and staying in a similar state of financial liability as I am now, I could easily put away about $700/month in the bank. Bank that over three years, and I'm looking at about $25K - not including investment possibilities and higher-return accounts. By that time, my car will have been paid off, so that's an extra $300 per month I don't have to pay. If I can't afford some form of schooling by then, or work my way into a better paying job - then something is seriously wrong with me.

Who cares if I have to shack up with a couple other guys to make it work like that. Four years or more and I have a fairly decent savings buffer saved up and -should- have some decent work history and education. Then I can turn around and lose every penny by deciding to get married and have kids.

I will wonder where my savings went, look around the house, and realize I am stepping on it (and screaming in agony) every night when I go to the bathroom.

No, not really - those kids will clean stuff up and have to get rid of toys they use only for projectiles. I don't know why my parents put up with me, sometimes... or got me a bunch of crap I didn't appreciate or deserve. I know they wanted me to have a better life than they had growing up - but now I just feel bad for how much they gave me and I just didn't appreciate it. I'm not sure which is the better way to go about it... early lessons or reflective lessons....