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.

 

"Food Stamps" and "Minimum Wage" do not belong in the same sentence.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Yet, most Americans with a small family(4 mouths to feed) need to work 2 *minimum* wage jobs and be on Food stamps in order to make ends meet.

So it is apparent to me that the US Government wants People to have to rely on the Government. It makes the Government appear to be "humanitarian" but that's a crock of ****. It gives the Government control over ones life.

I believe one of the first steps to helping this nation raising minimum wage. It needs to be AT LEAST $10 dollars per hour.
It is an oxymoron to have People working on minimum wage(sometime having to work 2 minimum wage jobs) and be on Food Stamps. That is the clear indicator that minimum wage is far from the "bare minimum".

Corporation and Business' solely function off of the sweat of our brow. Without Human Beings, Corporations wouldn't exist. When will they pay People what they are worth? Better question. When will People walk out on their jobs and demand it?
edit on 9-12-2011 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2011 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Do you understand that raising the minimum wage would lead to an increase in costs thus making the $10/hr worth less likely the same as 7.25.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Oh, in case you don't understand the implications of that; $10 becoming equal to $7 means a 30% wage cut for everybody else.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree
 


S&F!!

THIS needs a little more attention than it is getting.
if the CEO's can make millions in bonuses, fly around 1st class, while wearing clothes costing thousands; They can pay the backbone of they're businessess an extra two dollers and some change an hour...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
NO, I'm implying that people whom are getting paid, for example, $15 per hour also get the wage % increase. Their wages are based off the notion that minimum wage is $7.25.

My point is that 7.25 isn't "MINIMUM" wage. Hell, some people getting paid 15 bucks an hour still have trouble with living expenses.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree
 


Sure now all you have to do is get the business owner to agree to pay uneducated, unskilled workers $10.00 an hour. You will see unemployment blossom like never before.
Minimum wage is not the minimum you need to survive. It is the minimum payment allowed for labor. If you relied on the business owner to pay you suffeciently without big brother standing over him saying this is the least amount you can pay this person you would be disappointed. Left to their own devices a business owner will pay the least amount they can and still get the work done. If it was legal and they had a taker they could pay someone 2.00 an hour and they would just to save a dime.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree
 


If One adjusted the 1964 minimum wage HONESTLY for inflation, today it would be about $18 an hour. Yes, We have a problem. There is a solution...

Please visit My thread addressing this (electrogravitics) here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
NO, I'm implying that people whom are getting paid, for example, $15 per hour also get the wage % increase. Their wages are based off the notion that minimum wage is $7.25.

My point is that 7.25 isn't "MINIMUM" wage. Hell, some people getting paid 15 bucks an hour still have trouble with living expenses.
Fine, pass it up the line. The problem stays the same. The businesses will pass the increased labor costs on to consumers thus negating any benefit. Barring a big "reset", we can't win under this type of proposal. The game is rigged, we need to reset and change the rules so that they no longer favor corporations so strongly.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Second, we need to end these wars. The men and women who defend this country get paid not much more then minimum wage. Not much more then minimum and yet their LIVES are at risk. Politicians send them into harms way to to do the bidding of their corporate friends.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I understand what you are saying. Wages go up then the cost of products go up. But, are those products really worth what they are priced at?


I think Walmart is the best example of how corporate America pays us the bare minimum yet makes us spend the bare maximum.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


Not true. There area dishwashers making $10 an hour here in Buffalo. While armed guards make 9.5 an hour. People in NYC make $15 an hour working at McDonalds



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Themadalchemist
 


things are much more expensive in nyc then AZ which could be why some areas get paid more... source? girlfriend went to nyc this summer and a matinee movie she said was around $12 at AMC if i remember correctly and in AZ a matinee at AMC is around 6 or 7 dollars.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The thing is if minimum wage was 10 dollars, then the business owners would whine like little girls to the government has this idea that they need to make the poor middle and rich happy all at once, the only problem is the rich are rich so there happy yet there still greedy scums, while your neighbors(or you) are scratching up pennies for dinner every night. This country disgust's me in its morals, i thought we were the land of the free, If so being free isnt always the best!



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
so...
just a question here....
do food stamps and other gov't aide programs exist for the benefit of the poor??
or do they exist so the people will be willing to work for such a small amount???/

one thing's for sure, those ceo's and upper management and such would be getting the amount they would if their other employees were stuck living on that minimum wage, either the pay would have to rise, or the cost of living would have to be reduced, or well...their employees wouldn't be as productive as they are!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
What's the difference? The minimum wage is an artificial construct of government which interferes with supply and demand. If you think unskilled, teen, and young adult unemployment is bad now, go ahead and raise the minimum wage. OF COURSE you cannot support a family on the minimum wage. The question is, why are you dumb enough to try? If you are so unskilled that all you qualify for is minimum wage jobs, then just perhaps you ought to be concentrating on learning a skill that is valuable enough to earn more. THEN start a family you can afford.

I worked minimum wage myself for many years, and I had a Master's degree at the time. Whose fault was that? MINE, completely. The glut in graduates in my field did not just suddenly happen between enrollment and graduation. Had I bothered to research the situation I would have known. If you have a BA in English and are slinging fries, the same rule applies. Your education has intrinsic value, but not extrinsic. Too many people did the same thing.

The thing is, you are quite capable of getting yourself out of it if you have the energy, and if you don't expect the government to bail you. Did you know that HALF the McDonald's franchise owners started out slinging fries? Now they are part of the 1% you hate so much. If you start out part time minimum wage at Wal-mart there is no reason on earth why you could not be a manager within ten years, a district manager in 15, and an executive in 20--no reason whatsoever. The difference is individual drive and determination.

Depending upon the government to raise the minimum wage is the same thing as depending on government for food stamps. It's still dependence on government. If you need a helping hand with food stamps for awhile, I have no problem with that, but your goal ought to be to get off them as soon as possible. If you do not, your going to stay down in the cellar forever, and it's no one's fault but your own.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
The problem is that we live in a country where the top 20% of income earners in the U.S. literally possess more than 80% of the wealth. As a matter of fact, the top 1% are taking over 1/3 of the income.

A Discover Magazine web page on the distribution of wealth in the U.S.:

Distribution of Wealth Graphs

It's what happens in corporate America and even in small businesses. The people at the top take all the money, give a modest amount to their managers, and give the actual laborers doing all the work almost nothing in comparison. Why can't it be changed so easily? We live in a stock market based economy, for one.

And with regard to raising the minimum wage, cost of consumer products go up every time it does, because the people at the top refuse to allow the distribution of wealth to be altered.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
the trick is to raise lower wages to above the REAL poverty line, (like say a single person being able to afford rent,food clothing ect and support at least one dependant while only working one full time job) while at the same time keeping prices from being raised. not to mention full time jobs be available over part time jobs. part time should be for teens trying to earn a buck, not for adults trying to raise families.

we NEED to resume being a nation of manufaturers, instead of the nation of consumers we have become. we have taken the part that made us rich and discarded it, in favour of buying inferior products from countries that have no reason to want to see us prosper.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thatshicray
reply to post by Themadalchemist
 


things are much more expensive in nyc then AZ which could be why some areas get paid more... source? girlfriend went to nyc this summer and a matinee movie she said was around $12 at AMC if i remember correctly and in AZ a matinee at AMC is around 6 or 7 dollars.


I'm an armed guard, and am very skilled at what i do and other areas. My source is my pay stubs and my bills invoices, can't post those because of privacy concerns



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree
 


Thanks for posting this, used to be that one person willing to work 40 hours a week could support a family of four or more, it is sad that this is no longer the case. The income gap is wider before than it ever was, gas and oil prices keep rising, they say because of the rising cost of crude oil, yet the oil companies are making higher and higher profits. We spend billion of dollars in wars that the majority are against, bail out the banks, while those CEO are getting bonuses, for hurting the economy, give tax breaks to huge corporations that turn around and still ship jobs overseas. I believe we should hold the people at the top responsible for their actions, the people at the bottom shouldn't carry that burden as well as their own. Increase the tarifs on companies that do ship labor overseas. The average person is too busy working to realize just how much we have lost. But hopefully more and more people are waking up. This is my first reply so I do not know how or if I can give you credit for a good topic or I would.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


actually, the trick might be link the eligibility requirements for the social programs, along with the value of what is given through those social programs so they are equal.... and well, leave the minimum wage alone, since really it's quite irrelevant. I make over minimum, and I couldn't support an average sized family, maybe if I was paid twice as much.
but, well, if someone did come into the social service system asking for assistance, one of the first things they would be told was that in order to stay qualified, they would have to search for a higher paying job, one that would make them ineligable for the assistance. and their employers would just have to grin and bear the fact that they are getting calls because the person has used them as a reference and the person occasionally has to take off work to go for interviews, and know that the person just might actually hit their goal...

the money is there to pay them more in most case, ya sure the big corps might have to pay a little more when they contract the smaller businesses for work and all that, but the money is there!!!
the cost of living doesn't have to be this high, rent, food, ect... na, at the top of each chain there is some over paid big wigs that would die if their pay was to decrease a little bit!
I keep hearing how the taxpayers shouldn't have to be feeding the poor and taking care of their kids, ect...
well, fine, I buy that and up ya one!! the taxpayers should have to be subsidizing the payroll of these companies either by feeding their employees, providing them with housing and medical care, ect!! if the owner of the business wants able bodied people working so he can make a profit, well, it's his job to pay them enough so that they can meet their needs...not the taxpayers!!!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join