It's a complex thing. The average commute has increased several fold as have the numbers of commuters. In other words- the value of a dollar has never been the same across all regions. Those areas closest to strong economies but possessing low cost of living become stalites for people seeking to live bigger with the same salary. This drives up costs in the area and has a ripple effect in areas near these satalites. Globalization and e commerce further drive this, and the increase of standard of living for billions world wide requires cash be redirected from other areas. A decrease in production and an increase in technology have removed many skilled positions and reduced human value or eliminated it In many jobs. A direct dollar comparison isn't so simple as the world has also changed much, but it is true that with so many struggling to get by or afford a home, something should be done. Minimum wage might not be the answer, but it's a good jumping off point to an intelligent sollution
In 1980 the minimum wage was $3.15. This guy was getting paid twice the minimum wage . If he was getting twice the minimum wage in an entry level mailroom job, he knew somebody or was related to somebody.
People fail to realize a very simple issue with raising the minimum wage. You give people more money, companies raise their prices. Tada. You may get to see a few more numbers on your paycheck but the cost of living will go up as well to adjust for it.
'Cept companies are raising prices anyway, even when people can't afford stuff. Y'know how millennials are "killing" off so many industries? That's partly why. Minimum wage can't afford those things anymore. Even department stores are beginning to die out. And prices don't get lowered.
It's not simple either way. Companies may or may not recoup the losses through price hikes. They may also downsize work forces, or re evaluate the cost of automating jobs and eliminating humans. They may outsource to areas with cheaper labor etc. if we take a second view where wages go up and companies don't cut back somehow, what happens to the employees who get paid a decent wage because they have experience and know how earned through tenure? The ones who clawed up from minimum wage positions through demonstrated ability? Let's say they are finally making $18,20 an hour after 5-10 years of hard work- now we decide every 17yo kid on the street with no experience is worth the same? Do those guys get raises too, or do they now have the economic worth of someone with no experience or skill, someone who started yesterday vs. worked hard a decade? It's not simple either way. There's a problem, but it isn't pay that needs regulated it's cost, land and debt make you rich, that's broken.
@meatball2012 Companies are making record profits across the board. Perhaps those companies should be reinvesting in their employees instead of being beholden to shareholders. Wal-Mart, for example, makes enough profit per year to pay every employee $15 an hr and still turn a profit, but why would they? Their low-level employees are most likely getting government subsidies, what incentive does Wal-Mart have to try and cover those costs?
We fucked up somewhere and let greed get out of control.
I agree greed is out of control, but imagine having a percentage of what you own taken, electronics, clothes, toys, etc- by force and without consent, by someone saying they were giving them to the homeless because you live so much better than them. To many in the world and our own countries we are the 1%. We live in luxury compared to them. Wealth is relative. Beyond food, water, and shelter a luxury or necessity are perspective. No one "needs" toilet paper, or feminine hygiene products, many live without. How do we justify taking from someone else just because they have more? Without looking case by case at a persons finances and life, how do you decide they are being excessive? Between cost of living differences by location, planning for retirement and the future, emergency funds, individual medical expenses and more, how do we asses that? How do we look at the things a person enjoys but doesn't need to survive in a strict sense and determine if they are too frivolous?
Because people in this country have far less than most others. Basic necessities- If the answer is to take from people who have more, by that same logic it would be fair to take from middle class Americans and give to those Americans who have less. The way you or I look at a millionaire is the way the poorest Americans look at us. The way we think the rich eat too lavishly, have too much money for toys and amusements- others in our country feel about us. So where do we draw the line if we are taking money from people with "too much" and where do we draw the line on who deserves it the most? If someone can't afford a place to live and has an old jalopy or no car, aren't they worse off than a person with a home who is having trouble making payments on a new car? So do we take and sell that home so both parties can afford a place to rent, a smaller home, or tent? Elevating people up is a higher standard, tearing people down is just that. That was the intent. Apologies if I was unclear.
You look at it as amusements.... I look at it like this: Who actually benefits most from our infrastructure? The rich. Without question. Put the cost of roads, dams, bridges, power plants, sewers, police, fire departments, etc, etc, etc... into perspective. The richest people in the country use these resources well over 1000 fold than the average citizen, especially the average poor citizen... fuck yeah they should pay for it. Wal-Mart would try to figure a way around building an interstate highway or railroad if they could... and then think about how much Wal-Mart actually uses our interstates and railroads.... I know I overuse the Wal-Mart example, but damn are they not the perfect example of everything that is wrong with corporate welfare in this country.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that our system is designed to benefit those with the most. I agree that we have created a system where a lack of ethics isn't only forgiven, but the best way to suceed. I feel like a video game the more you succeed the harder it should get to go further, not easier as it currently is with money. That said, taking that outrage and working a solution isn't so simple. Things are wrong, we don't like it- so the usual response is to clamor for a solution even if it's the wrong solution. The current system is a pyramid, with each level of wealth supported by the ones below it, with those near the bottom being most numerous and having the least wealth and rights. From slavery, sweat shops, to underpaid wages- we as a society have always found a way to create a large "forgotten class" to facilitate middle class life, which supports the most wealthy. The argument shouldn't be "give me some of that dirty money" the argument should be about making the money clean.
It's all the same to me. The ruling matters little to me, the underlying issues which precipitated the need for a ruling are my concern. We put infrastructure in the hands of for profit companies and expect them to act in the public good. They exist by default to serve their own interests, which may or may not align with public good. Due to a lack of competition and our reliance upon certain large corporations they know they effectively can't be put out of business regardless of loss of public faith or through any but the most flagrant disregards for the rule of law. So really we either need to decide if we want socialist enterprise, or be smart and maintain our own infrastructure out of the hands of private individuals and allow companies to fill gaps or offer premium alternatives. This half/half approach is overly complex and leaves too much ambiguity. Greed, technology, and inginuity have always outpaced legislation. We need to get in front instead of trying to always catch up.
I like this; there is only one fallacy in that argument though.... you are asking the american people to be smart. We've literally put supposed safe guards in place because... while the individual may be smart.... well you know the rest.
I also have to say.. a corporation has zero motivation to act like an individual. It has every reason to be as selfish as it can possibly be and abuse any power it can squire. It's the literal moral antithesis.
That behavior would get you murdered within 2 days 10,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or even in a group of outlaws 100 years ago.
Sad but true. Conglomerates open all sorts of doors, but by and large defeat competition and jside step monopoly laws. So if corporations are people, isn't owning another company slavery? That's some of the ambiguity I mentioned. When it best suits them they are wards of the state, and when not they are private enterprise. They are individuals the moment it's a benefit, but as soon as there is a law an individual cannot break, they are corporations. We let the same people running or invested in these corporations or their affiliates police them, then wonder why there is corruption. For people it's less a lack of intellect and more a lack of awareness. People tend to favor that which benefits them personally, or that which they see as helping another without them sacrificing to do so. If people acted on their principals over their self interest it would be different. In a way we are all guilty of the thing we blame politicians for, we just get smaller rewards and have less power.
With no offense to the good people of Alabama, in historical context as a state, even a small victory is a huge one here. As for the constitution... another one of those articles of convenience? One moment a sacred document which underpins civilization, and the next some outdated sugggestions by dead guys who didn't know about the future. It tends to change based on how someone feels about an issue (like guns), or how a ruling would effect those making the decision financially and/or their personal views. Make no mistake. President set on court record is that the government has no duty to protect citizens, only to enforce law. Law is designed to protect commerce and growth. Stability is key to economic development (when you're already winning) instability has a large chance to uproot institutions and replace them with new winners. It also tends to disrupt those just getting by in life, so those people tend to support the entrenchment that blocks their possible success.
I know that. Trump won by 28 points, in context that's an absolute landslide. A democrat had zero fucking business picking up that senate seat.... but damn.... I believe in miracles! You sexy thing... you sexy thing you!
I've never agreed with a single thing about Citizens United. It was a dumb unconstitutional idea/ruling then, now and forever. I'm not going to put party over country; never have and never will. I have a pretty basic philosophy (when you get specific, over time you're just going to eventually bite your own tongue).
I'm guilty of it, no doubt... I'm a hypocrite sometimes, but I do try and veer myself away from being one.
Lol. Yeah. I know the feeling. We are all just people though. It's easy to forget, especially when we feel strongly about something. also that often times people can seem like hypocrites simply because they have nuanced views on certain facets of things, or that they recognize multiple sides of an issue even if they don't agree with it entirely. On the surface citizens united is simple on either side, but diving into it I find there are points on each side that I support, and points I don't.
Story time lol: I once nearly got expelled because I argued a point I didn't agree with entirely (before we get to what I argued, what I really believe is that hope and freedom of mine are bastions for all). The question was... were slaves better off immediately after the Civil War? I said no because there was resentment that immediately swelled and caused massive damage to individuals and families that carried on in the south for generations. My teacher tried to tell me that that opinion was wrong and I pretty much went into a debate war of how an opinion, even one I don't agree with, can be wrong. I argued if she wanted a Yes answer she should have asked a yes question; I was just trying to challenge myself and debate another side (a great debater can win the debate on both sides regardless). Had she said I had a poor argument, I would have conceded. She didn't. This went on for over 2 hrs before she told me to go to the principal who told me to accept my grade or get expelled.
I like intellectual fights but I had basketball practice. Turns out that teacher eventually denied me into the national honors society and screwed me over when I applied to NYU. Cunt bitch.
Damn. That's a story alright. Life is strange, and hopefully things turned out well or are on the way to it. Many teachers either don't want to be teachers, or just don't have the resources so don't spend time on any one thing. Instead of teaching people to form opinions on their own they try to pass their own way of thinking on to students. It sounds like this teacher just wanted students who followed along, not ones who engaged in thought. Also her question was extremely general, and ambiguous. Story time:
My grandfather started dating in his 70's after his wife had passed many years before. He was a hit as at that age women outnumber living men. So he ended up with a 90+ year old Latvian woman who on most accounts was very sweet- but she drank heavily and could be a mean drunk. One night I go visit while he was staying at her house. I am talking to her (I like talking to older people and getting their memories and views on history.) Somehow we get on the subject of her coming to America. She shows me her immigration papers from when she landed, starts tearing up over her dead husband and sons names by hers, then switches over to showing other old documents about her family. That's when things get oddly dark.
She gets back to her journey. She talks about their fear of soviet occupation, life as a refugee running across Europe in the midst of WWII, the conditions, the horrors, the fear and famine, things she wasn't proud of but did to survive. And then- a "happy" twist that made me quite uncomfortable. After their Lin journey they reached safety. There was security, plenty of food, clean clothes, water, order and law. She was so happy, and talking about it made her light up. You could tell to her it was a pivotal moment. Then she says: "They say he did all kinds of things. I don't know. I know he kept things running and we had jobs and food. That Aldolph Hitler was a good man." Yup. They wandered into Nazi Germany, and after where they came from, what they went through, and the soviets they were so terrified of, to her Hitler was the man she had to thank for saving her in her darkest time in life, and the life that came after. This woman liked Hitler.
So "better off IMEDIATELY after" is kinda contextual, and maybe based more on if we mean better in a moral or present practical sense. It is a question of "better" as in their future prospects and mental outlook, or better as in their loss of physical goods and structure. A hill is a hill until you climb it and see the view. Saying things are better or worse at the bottom compared to home is open to interpretation.
That is one hell of a story; and in a different way proves the point I was trying to make. For someone who gets lynched right after, slavery sounds better. It's really a question suited for a philosophy class in college instead of a US history class in HS, even an AP class given how the factory is run now. I wish that wasn't the case, I wish it could be an 8th grade short essay question.... but... fuck.
bruh taco bell hired me for 8.50 an hour just go work there they always hiring and they start you higher than minimum yall just need to know how to conserve your money and to get a better job than a job that pays minimum wage.
I worked for minimum wage back when it was $3.15 per hour. I couldn't afford a house or support a family, because unskilled part time work doesn't justify that kind of pay. I earned money to help put myself through college and later earned enough to support a family on just my pay. The point is this: Not every job has the value to justify pay that's enough to afford a car or house or whatever. If an average high school student can do it, it's probably not worth more than the law of supply and demand equals out to. If you jack up the minimum wage to make yourself feel better about unskilled people, a lot of jobs will go away. That will not only harm unskilled full time workers, but also people trying to get a first job so they can get a foot on the first rung of the ladder.
In an increasingly automated world, with increasingly sophisticated computer programs, algorithms, and easier access to instant information- there are fewer and fewer jobs that can't be done by a high schooler. As tightly written cheap programs created as job aids simplify, streamline, and procedurize jobs that used to require judgment, knowledge, and innovation, and mass conglomerates adopt a "one method for all" approach for consistent experience and to lessen potential liability- you will keep seeing jobs getting dumbed down. The world needs more than Dr's lawyers, etc. and the machines are coming for them too. As machines get better and cheaper more will disappear. What's left? We can't all build, design, and code machines can we? And if we do- how much do you think that would pay from a demand perspective? The early 80's was a different time. If you'd like to come to 2018 and have this discussion we of the future await you ice man.
I exist and function in 2018, so no need for the insult and condescension because you don't like what I have to say. All my kids have gotten part time jobs in high school and college, from summer help installing sprinkler systems and moving furniture, to working retail, tutoring, and interning at an engineering company (after two years of engineering school) for a couple summers. There are opportunities, but they're not handed to you...same as in the '80s.
Today, your market for products or service extends beyond your hometown, as in my day, to wherever the Internet reaches. Recently I bought a little unique classic model auto the same type as one I saw at a museum...from someone across the country that I wouldn't have known existed before Internet search engines. My neighbor's kid does antivirus and other computer help.
But, even if things are so different, Raising the minimum wage to a level that's more than what the job is worth sure won't increase the number of those jobs.
Apologies if you were offended, but I suppose condescension doesn't feel very good. If so, why are you condescending to those who don't have what you do? I don't just mean material wise, I mean resources, education, opportunities? It's not just working hard- if it was every day laborer holding down 4 jobs would be rich. You need to know what opportunities are, get access, and have the ability to capitalize. By no means am I saying that a person can't change their circumstances, but it's not as simple as "lifting yourself by your boot straps." If that's the case we'd have to believe that the majority of earths population is just lazy. I do agree raising minimum wage isn't the answer. That just hurts un(der) educated or skilled middle workers who may have spent years on the job to get to a better wage. It just makes more "poor" people but doesn't narrow the gap between barely getting by and being comfortable.
I find it condescending to say "come into 2018 iceman." But, I don't see the same in my posts saying, essentially, "don't let the negative sentiments become your excuses for not trying to make something of your life." There were challenges then, and plenty challenges now. There are resources and opportunities now that we didn't have 40 years ago, so,don't let someone else's whining about how hard things are keep you from doing things that will provide for you financially and be the things that occupy your time and contribute to others.
It's also basic economics that if you price something beyond what it's worth, there won't be many (or any) purchasers of it. So if you price labor above what it's worth to the employers that consume labor, they'll auto,ate or find a way to use as little,of it as possible. Making minimum wage non-viable by raising it will harm people looking for their first job. why does every job have the "right" to be able to support a family?
“All MY kids have...” I’m glad you’re doing well. But the point is other people are not doing well. The fact that you were able to find sucess doesn’t
mean that other people can do the same. Every 4 years someone gets the opportunity to be president- that doesn’t mean everyone will get to be president. The world only needs so many engineers and so on, not everyone can suceed that way. My point was that you flippantly say it as though anyone can be expected to find success if they look harder. It undermines the struggles people go through. Yes- one can let excuses stand between them and success, but our system has much room for improvement and things don’t get better if people don’t speak up. As for basic economics there is a flaw there. If your asertation was true “war profiteering” and similar acts like collusion and price fixing or monopolies wouldn’t be crimes. It’s highly possible to set a price on anything if you control supply.
As for minimum wage- I agree that raising minimum wage isn’t the answer. It creates problems and hurts many hardworking people while simply increasing the wealth divide but making more people “poor.” As to who says every job should pay living wage? No one. Many are saying though that anyone should be able to survive on a single full time job with a certain margin of free capital. The way many “poor” live today would be a higher standard and survivability than many of our well off ancestors. Society continually improves and both the top and bottom lines get raised as we progress. I could write a whole paper on why society is conditioned to and is so hostile or cold towards those who have it worse than us. It’s a negative human trait that hopefully we may evolve past. But long gone are the days when a single failure in providing meant death for you and yours. We moved past that and continue to move forward to raise the basic standards and education of all humans. Hopefully.
Last time I started a job at minimum wage I received a raise before my first check. If you're making minimum wage for any length of time, maybe you should shut the fuck, turn your phone off, and get to work.
Did you also "just go down and talk to the guy" to get the job? Minimum wage, online applications, Right to Work, anti-discrimination...it's different now. That's the point.
We fucked up somewhere and let greed get out of control.
I also have to say.. a corporation has zero motivation to act like an individual. It has every reason to be as selfish as it can possibly be and abuse any power it can squire. It's the literal moral antithesis.
That behavior would get you murdered within 2 days 10,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or even in a group of outlaws 100 years ago.
And even though it was by 1.5%, Alabama... Ala-fucking-bama has given me a glimmer of hope.
I'm guilty of it, no doubt... I'm a hypocrite sometimes, but I do try and veer myself away from being one.
Today, your market for products or service extends beyond your hometown, as in my day, to wherever the Internet reaches. Recently I bought a little unique classic model auto the same type as one I saw at a museum...from someone across the country that I wouldn't have known existed before Internet search engines. My neighbor's kid does antivirus and other computer help.
But, even if things are so different, Raising the minimum wage to a level that's more than what the job is worth sure won't increase the number of those jobs.
It's also basic economics that if you price something beyond what it's worth, there won't be many (or any) purchasers of it. So if you price labor above what it's worth to the employers that consume labor, they'll auto,ate or find a way to use as little,of it as possible. Making minimum wage non-viable by raising it will harm people looking for their first job. why does every job have the "right" to be able to support a family?
mean that other people can do the same. Every 4 years someone gets the opportunity to be president- that doesn’t mean everyone will get to be president. The world only needs so many engineers and so on, not everyone can suceed that way. My point was that you flippantly say it as though anyone can be expected to find success if they look harder. It undermines the struggles people go through. Yes- one can let excuses stand between them and success, but our system has much room for improvement and things don’t get better if people don’t speak up. As for basic economics there is a flaw there. If your asertation was true “war profiteering” and similar acts like collusion and price fixing or monopolies wouldn’t be crimes. It’s highly possible to set a price on anything if you control supply.