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.

 

Minimum wage: a hurdle for the poor.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
KayEm,
"Employers Suck!" I couldn't agree with you more! Here's to self-fulfilment through self-employment.

And Scout ol' boy,
You just don't get it. I was pointing out that your argument was padantic at best. Any conclusion based upon a series of assumptions is suspect.




posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
You're worried about the loss of teen jobs, when heads of families are now being forced to take these "new economy" retail crap jobs at minimum wage to try and send their kids to college so they can be better off than their parents? What's with the "skilled/unskilled" talk? The people taking these jobs are skilled in something America no longer does on any real level...manufacture.

It's the multinationals fault they have to. They sold out America. The American way. The middle class. Blue collar people. Skilled people.

If you're against any minimum wage, the multinationals have won. You're rewarding them for selling out America. You're encouraging "competition" in a race to the lowest common denominator. We should create a third world class just to suit Wal-Mart's needs? No thank you.

If you're just against a wage increase, then I understand your position better. But everything you're saying against an increase is really against having a minimum wage at all.

I appreciate you're working class and lucky enough to have fair broker employer. The US Government. You and I'm sure to some extent your family have some reasonable access to things alot of the "working poor" don't. Like healthcare, retirement, college...even nice loans for both a mortgage and reliable transportation. Put yourself, your family now in Wal-Mart job by comparison.

Could you mangage as well? At all? Is some standard too much to ask? What jobs would Wal-Mart create (as you insist they would) should their wages be slashed and filled with the teenagers your dear professors is so worried about? The argument's a joke. Wal-Mart would screw us again somehow.

I'm sorry but I'm just a big fat liberal I suppose. Corporations aren't good citizens by nature. Some semblence of morality and responsibilty must be regulated.

If a slight bump in the minimum wage results in some belt tightening for the quarter of a trillion (not a typo) in income Wal-Mart takes in annually, too damn bad. I'd just as soon burn them all down as have them build one more. They RUINED the south. Plain and simple. Other places too I'm sure. But I see it here plain as day.

[Edited on 1-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
But, you see, that is exactly the problem. Wal-Mart wont just tighten their belt. They have a responsibility to many people to insure they don't have to. Instead, they will simply perform another round of lay-offs.

I also live in the south, about as deep as you can get, and about 5 miles away from walmart. When I first moved here, my wife inquired about one of their coveted minimum wage jobs and was told they had just scaled back 22 cashiers. 22! While it wasnt due to a wage increase, It was due to a lack of the ability to lower wages. Like it or not, they will not see thier profits drop. Those with controling interest will not allow it.

Also, while I do feel bad for the small buisiness owners who loose to Wal-Mart, there is a reason for it. Lets face it, the average Wal-Mart shopper is not exactly well-to-do. I personaly enjoy being able to go there and but a shirt for my kids for $2.50. I also enjoy being able to get everything done in one place, instead of running around town all day. I can pick up a prescription, get my tires changed, shop for groceries and clothes and buy fishing worms all in one place, and I spend less.

Lets face it, It's a success because it is a better way, and it is a better way because it makes the average persons life a little easier.

And you are right about my getting health care and enough money to go to school for one year, although these things are available to any welfare recipient. I just work for them instead. I don't qualify for the VA loan and my wife has to work two MINIMUM WAGE jobs just to make our car payment and buy dental insurance. Life for an enlisted soldier isn't as peachy as many seem to think, and I can speak from the perspective of someone who lives paycheck to paycheck with no savings and bills constantly behind.

Sure am glad for the local Wal-Mart, though.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Also, you are right about the teen worker thing not being a good example. Its hard to find good research on such an un-common perspective on short notice.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Minimum wage is called that for a reason.........

Those are jobs that employ people who are just getting into the swing. Min wage isn't supposed to keep those people there forever, it's a stepping stone..

If companies did pay people $25 . hr you think they would want to leave?? Hell no!

They'd stay there, they wouldn't go off to school or get a higher education to get paid more money...

They'd stay right where they are!

In closing, minimum wage is called that for this exact reason.. It's a stepping stone.......

And for those that are not teenager and in that kind of work, will stay poor, unless they save save save for the betterment of their life.

Then there are old ladies and men that just want a simple job like min wage jobs have to offer just to get out and be around people...
Maybe to help pay for the medication too...

The end.

Written and thought out by

TrueLies
copyright 2004 +



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
It's not too uncommon a position Scout. The wage increase will be fought ferociously by half the House and Senate. They always are.

I understand the arguments on both sides though. It's just the implications aren't acceptable to me.

I know everything's a mess now, and we're damned if you do damned if you don't. And I totally understand the "survival of the fittest" ideals of 100% market driven capitalism (sans Government restraint)...but the thought of people suffering (or dying) in order to "fix things" just bugs me.

It's hard to stay objective when you know people a minimum wage increase will help.

Anyway, I still think all the problems with having a minimum wage stem from the gross inequity in the standard of living everywhere else in the world. A standard seemingly so subpar simply because of how great America has become because of parity initiatives like a minimum wage. Everything got screwed up with free trade and multinats IMO. But it's unavoidable now. So what do we do?

Stoop to the level of the rest of the world or challenge them to rise to our level?

[Edited on 1-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
You are right about that, it is pretty messed up. And I do understand where your feelings come from. It would be easy to keep slowly bumping the minimum wage and keep the situation pretty much the same, but I really believe this will do more harm in the long run. As tech. advances and more jobs turn toward the service industry, those middleclass jobs dissapear, and what we are left with is two classes, one rich and one poor. This we both agree on. However, what I believe is that as this happens, the minimum wage will set in stone a lower class, one not able to negotiate for better wages. After all, why would the lower jobs be paid more than the gov. says they are worth?

It is too bad that the manufacturing jobs are going away, that the middle class is going away, but remember sho that leaves. The upper and lower classes. I see minimum wage as a concreete block cementing the poor's feet to the bottom. Lets face it, there are more than enough people to fill the skilled labor jobs that will remain. When I get out of the military in a few years, I sure hope I have little more leeway in negotiating a salary than walking in and being told the job pays a set amount, because its the lowest job in the company and thats what the government says the lowest job is worth.


Oh my God, talk about a broken record. I think I need to get some sleep, it's 2 AM here.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by cavscout]



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
You may not ever agree, but I hope you at least understand the point I am trying to make.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

It's the multinationals fault they have to. They sold out America ...

Corporations aren't good citizens by nature.


Perfectly true, RANT. In fact they can be classified as Psychotic, as explained in a new documentary about the excesses of Corporations.

TORONTO - Corporations are not only the most powerful institutions in the world, they are also psychopathic, a new Canadian documentary on globalization elegantly argues.

While the corporation has the rights and responsibilities of a legal person, its owners and shareholders are not liable for its actions. Moreover, the film explains, a corporation's directors are legally required to do what is best for the company, regardless of the harm created.


Corporations Need Treatment, Documentary Argues

[Edited on 2-7-2004 by Pisky]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
cav you make some excellent points, I agree with everything you have said.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   
omega1, thanks alot. It's nice to know someone does.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Truelies has the right concept of minimum wage. It is a stepping stone. It is intended for high schoolers, elderly and college attendees. Granted that some or most minimum wage jobs are tough and you do work your ass off, I know cause I used to work them years ago when I was in school preparing myself for a better, higher paying job. It is not intended for you to stay forever, it's your choice of what you want out of life and you have to work to get it.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
See, heres the thing. It wasn't meant to be a "steping stone", so that argument is simply a liberal "wouldn't it be great if........." idea. Although it may have worked out that way for many, for many more it does not. I am not saying this is an excuse for poverty, simply a hurdle. The idea of it being a steping stone is just an emotional liberal rationalization for a failed system. Liberals are really good at emotional rationalization.

Also, what is the function of government? It is there for one reason, to protect you and your property. This is the only legitimate goal. If we are going to continue to alow Big Brother to tell us how much we can or can't charge someone for our services, why should we stop there? Why not tell us the minimum negotiating price of a certain model of vehicle, or put a cap on the price someone can charge for a 27" TV?

Mabey we should look at one of the REAL reasons we have a minimum wage. Sweat shops in early New York. Entire familys of just of the boat immigrants working 11 hours per day , 7 days a week for a very small wage. There was a reason they got on a boat and traveled over the ocean to do that, because it was a BETTER WAY. We see those people and just think how horrible it is that they have to work in those conditions, without concidering what it is they may have been excaping.

Another reason was that after the blacks were free and asians began to migrate over, the market was flooded with cheap labor, putting alot of whites out of work. A former slave could work harder and cheaper than the average white man. However, if they raised the wage, made it so the employer HAD to pay the price the whites wanted anyway, they would of course hire the whites over the blacks.

Sounds like a real good system we have there, keep the poor Blacks and Irish from ever taking jobs away from the protestant white American poor.
Sounds like we have our first case affirmative action, the minimum wage.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
What a crock! Thanks for your reactionary view of American History! I needed a reminder of just how far afield your thiking was from my own to fully understand where you were going with this.

Why don't you end the suspense and give us your tight little solution to poverty so that we can all crown you King of Economics and end this ridiculous round-robin.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared
What a crock! Thanks for your reactionary view of American History! I needed a reminder of just how far afield your thiking was from my own to fully understand where you were going with this.

Why don't you end the suspense and give us your tight little solution to poverty so that we can all crown you King of Economics and end this ridiculous round-robin.


you really can't see it? do I have to spell out where what I think? O.K., now pay attention.....see if you can understand me, I'll try and be more clear for you.

there is no "tight little solution to poverty", there is no "King of Economics". there is nothing you can do to end poverty, all you can do is not make it harder ot negotiate a wage. mandatory wages didn't end poverty. the middle class has all but vanished despite a minimum wage, so where has it helped? can someone making $5.15 per hour afford to care for 4 children? not without gov. aid he cant. so just sit there and show me how it helps. Wait, let me guess. It needs to be bigger, right? that should just fix everything! no? no.

Gov. control over the economy dosn't work. there is nothing that will ever fix the poverty situation. we have been fighting the "war on poverty" longer than I have been alive, and it hasn't done a thing. big buisiness is bigger, the little guy is smaller. for such a great nation, you would think we could fix that, right? wrong. it cant be fixed. so why create a semi-permanent class of people who's defining characteristic is that they all make less money than it takes to be comfortable? is it because it makes people like you feel better? does it help you sleep at night? i hope so, because that would be the only good it does.

how about instead of telling me how im a retard but not giving any input, just asking questions, you actually contribute.

my challenge to you is to explain to me some way the minimum wage has actually helped alleviate the poverty situation in our country. do you think you can do that. tell me some way it has helped. and dont just say that it makes the poor have more money, that would be stupid.

lets hear it. you tell me how it makes things better, how it has changed the poverty class in our nation, and how it will help to end the "war against poverty" in the future.

you cant, because its a uncle sam sham. just like the "war on drugs", the EPA, or any other failed government sponcered mandatory life control system that does more harm than good and sees negative results.

you cant because the poverty class is growing, and so is the minimum wage in nearly every state.

[edit on 5-7-2004 by cavscout]



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky


Perfectly true, RANT. In fact they can be classified as Psychotic, as explained in a new documentary about the excesses of Corporations.

TORONTO - Corporations are not only the most powerful institutions in the world, they are also psychopathic, a new Canadian documentary on globalization elegantly argues.

While the corporation has the rights and responsibilities of a legal person, its owners and shareholders are not liable for its actions. Moreover, the film explains, a corporation's directors are legally required to do what is best for the company, regardless of the harm created.


Corporations Need Treatment, Documentary Argues

[Edited on 2-7-2004 by Pisky]


Good post, Husband

KayEm gives Pisky a high-five

Lock up the corporates in prisons where they TRULY belong and then we might just begin to see an end to poverty.

Sometimes radical works.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join