It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: seeker1963
Flipping burgers builds character for a 15 year old for about one summer, after that it is soul crushing. The fact that pensioners and widows who have worked their entire lives building up this civilization are becoming greeters at Walmart so they can afford to feed themselves is abhorrent to me. It used to be that you gave a company 45 years and you could expect to live comfortably for the rest of your life. Now, you are lucky if you can hold a job for a few years at a time and retirement is a total joke.
A 401k is not a pension, although with a 401k you can earn millions if you are smart about it. For malinvestors, which is the majority, it offers no guarantee of comfort in their final years. Social security is mandatory malinvestment with a 100% estate tax associated with it, and it has no accrual of true value. You cannot take out a loan against your social security account which is evidence #1 that it is not a proper retirement fund. Plus the SSD/SSI program is totally broken in this country. A depressed teenager or a heroine addict could get SSI tomorrow, but a working class male who has 15% mobility in his right arm doesn't qualify for SSD, and there is no such thing as partial disability, which should exist for the person who has had their income potential severely limited by disability.
I was mowing yards and shoveling snow as a preteen for extra money. That is an entry level job, and it teaches self-motivation and basic levels of entrepreneurship. Running a lemonade stand as an eight year old is a good entry level job. The "entry level jobs" of today are not even blue collar. These jobs are so menial that a robot and a point of sale kiosk could easily perform them. Expecting someone to devote a significant portion of their lives to jobs like these is insanity to me.
I'd rather someone have the moral courage to call me useless and to put a bullet in my head than to insult me by suggesting that my only use to the future of civilization is to stand at a counter all day operating point of sale. At least that would save some oxygen for the rest of the animals on this planet. The simple fact is that the means of production have become so efficient that civilization no longer requires a 40 hour work week from its people. What is wrong with that? Can't we move down to a 30 or 20 hour work week, offer a bit more in wages and allow more people to have more disposable income and free time?
This would create opportunities in the entertainment and tourism industries, and could cause another boom in the economy. People are so contemptuous of others, but every time we distribute the means of production laterally, there is an economic explosion. Just imagine what will happen when 3D printing technologies become more readily available. I'm sure that if people had more free time, many, many of them would waste it on drugs and video games, but some of them would utilize that time to create things worthy of a free people, and it is those creative few that are the backbone of a renaissance, not the distracted and complacent many.
That is the benefit of a Bohemian age, you liberate the people to bear their creative talents into reality and in the process of creation, they create a better world for all of us. Instead of being big fish in a small pond, the elite get to become elevated to be sharks in an ocean, and yes they may not be as significant relativistically, but the lifestyle they enjoy is greater and the world they live in is more aesthetically pleasing in absolute terms.
Here is my basic point towards corporations... if your people cannot afford to feed and house themselves on a full-time schedule and you cannot aide them in a retirement program, then you should be responsible to pay back the cost of educating those workers, providing them with public assistance benefits and providing them with social security and medicaid in their later years. Essentially, these programs are not a benefit to the poor, but a subsidy to the corporations so they can externalize the cost of caring for their own labor force.
originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: seeker1963
Honestly, we probably would be better off without a minimum wage at this point, because then at least people could get some type of employment. As it stands today, unless someone can earn an employer at least $40 an hour through their efforts, employing them would cost the company money by the time you take minimum wage, taxes, workman's comp and all that other noise out of the profit margin. Minimum wages only make sense when you already have full employment and higher workforce participation. When you only have 60% of the people working, minimum wage increases don't seem like the answer to me.
Personally, I think government wage matching makes more sense, because this doesn't discourage entry level work, but it also doesn't put the burden of the minimum wages onto the employers. If the government matched employers wages on all workers up to the minimum wage mark, this would raise wages without causing unemployment. Taxes would probably have to go up unless the congress nationalized the federal reserve, but it is easier for a company to avoid paying taxes than it is for them to front the increased cost of labor.