To those who believe in the "American Dream"Follow

Lord Xythex wrote:



And I repeat; People can be stupid and lazy, they shouldn't be, it sucks. Not my fault.

I make below $15 an hour, and I still can afford an apartment and pay the bills. My parents pay for school, and that's it. If I wasn't going to school, I could be even better off than I am.


But when they raise the minimum wage, and big macs* become $3 instead of $2 to cover the costs, it's not my dad that will notice, it's me.


After a couple of months working my first job at a fast food chain, I was making above minimum wage. My employer often lamented the fact that there weren't many people that were looking for employment at or around minimum wage...that could work during school hours. Those that could made above minimum wage, just so they would stay there.








* Just to clarify, I don't eat at McSh[b][/b]ithole, I was simply using it as a reference.

Maybe you should read some more Rousseau there, Rognars.

Let me suggest a little book called "The Social Contract".

You know what?

Fu[/u]ck you, you stupid stupid fu[u]ck.

Raising minimum wage forces lower end jobs offshore to other countries.

For the most part, international outsourcing is a good thing, IMO. However, it also widens the gap between rich and poor and is part of the reason why middle class America is eroding. Essentially, the job market is open to 'haves' and 'have nots' where the means of measure is job qualification. Without specialised trainign and education that are in demand, a worker finds themself falling into the 'have not' category and working the counter at McD's. This spells trouble for fat lazy Americans with an inflated sense of entitlement.

Would they unite under a woman until the leader of the surface people has his evil scientist send down a robotic clone to ignite a revolution?

Somebody gots a hardon for joo, Pickle?

Unfortunately, an economy is necessary for civilization in any manner that we know it.

One of the central necessities for civilization is population. I've said it before and I'll say it again: globalization is an absolute requirement for an increasing technological level of our civilization just because globalization coopts more people and resources into the existing framework. This allows for growth. People who are embedded in that framework will benefit.

While many of us would be content with a mule and ten acres on an individual basis, the fact remains that things just don't work like that. Someone ALWAYS takes control. Someone ALWAYS manages to make good at his neighbor's expense. That someone is usually the guy in charge. Imagine that...the guy who gets to decide how big everyone's paycheck is makes his own bigger than the guy working for him thinks is reasonable. Go figure.

That's why it's commonly said that War drives technology. It does. Every invention we have serves the purpose to grant an advantage over those who do not have it. Whether the end result is that you get your gardening completed in 6 hours less a month or that your country can afford to feed itself using only 40% of the labor as its neighbors and can therefore field more troops, the principle remains the same: get an advantage and use it for your own benefit. Rat race, anyone?

As a species, we need to get our act together and figure out what we're going to do when fossil fuels slow to a trickle in a couple of decades.

Totem,

McDonald's employees make a pretty good wage here in SF and somehow the owners of those business are STILL making money.

Basically, it comes down to wage slavery.

The gap between lowest paid and highest paid is growing larger every year.

You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but this fake-*** capitalism/Horatio Alger sh[/u]it is just that....sh[u]it.

Wow, lots of good opinions so far... here's mine.

Minimum wage is designed as a bare minimum pay rate for a basically unskilled worker. Anybody that is paying McMinimum to their employees better only have them doing McMinimum type work... like preparing food at a fast food joint. Except the problem is they're either too young (and therefore often don't listen well) or dumb and end up causing 9 of 10 cases of food poisoning - at the restaurant. I dislike the fact that my food is being prepared by somebody completely unqualified in food safety, etc... but the economics demand it. Yes, the economics demand that my food is prepared by some kid with booger juice on his fingers and that isn't even wearing a hair net or following any other industry accepted GMPs!

Although the minimum wage does need to change over time, I could not disagree more than with whoever said it should automatically flex with the economy. If we did that, it would make the job of the Federal Reserve even more difficult as it would add in a delayed cycle effect they would have to compensate for when determining rates. This could result in a short term pendulum effect on inflation and deflation each time the rate was changed. If it is to change over time, it should probably be determined by the Chair of the Fed (or somebody similarly smart on fiscal policy/economica) but certainly not by some elected congresspeople who 'feel sorry' for the poor.

If you feel that you should be able to raise 5 children on McMinimum, please go to the nearest Suicide Booth and press 'Start'. I feel sorry for the underpriveliged also - but there is a point where the bleeding heart means that you've run out of blood. It is NOT a right or a freedom to raise children in squalor and poverty - it is self-centered and should be a crime. If you cannot afford to have children, then don't... simple as that.

Unions? They really were needed when they first got started. Back then the rich industrialists really pissed on the little guy. Now Unions shut down companies when they feel like it. I can understand that a new hire licensed electrician needs to be paid well because they studied and passed a challenging curriculum. I cannot understand how companies can be forced to bring in new hires with zero experience at a pay level WAY above realistic, just because it's a Union shop.

Sure, after working there for a few years the hard working people should make a decent living - but the Union reps won't settle for that. They want MORE. New hires at Union shops can make more than veterans at non Union shops... until the Union shop loses all their business as they can't produce it at a low enough cost to compete.

Of course when it's raise time, they should give more to the more productive team members... but they don't - it's often a set percentage. This encourages a whole class of lazy unmotivated overpaid 'workers', and also demotivates those who would otherwise be harder workers. Why work harder when the raise will be the same anyways they feel. Unions will be the death of Unions - they just don't get it yet.



If you haven't seen Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis' I suggest you do. :D Obviously you meant sarcasm, but some may feel that way without sarcasm. They're wrong unfortunately.

If you increase the cost of goods too much, the market will go to somewhere it can be done cheaper. Sooner or later, there won't be any jobs left in this country other than 'rich land baron', 'rich humanitarian' and broke.

Edited, Tue Dec 21 16:01:03 2004 by Mindwalker

Sure they are, Pickle, because otherwise the owner would not be able to place workers behind the counter. As the market requires it, owners raise the wages of those he needs to keep a business profitable. But that is not to say that in Podunk, Mississippi that the franchise owner there can pay his workers the same wage. Everything from large scale forces to subtle nudges determine the wages of workers, the price of the product, and viability of that product determine the concentration and number of particular franchises or businesses in an area. San Francisco itself probably is not a very good model on which to base a national standard for a living wage due to it's outrageous cost of living.

Totem

What if this woman had a great job and lost it due to some corporate layoffs from something like a burst in an industry-wide stock market bubble? What if teh skills she learned are tailored to one industry in particular that she simply cannot find any work in? What if she does not qualify for welfare? What if her welfare check isn't enough to cover the basic necessities for her children? What if this woman had a husband who supported her and has now decided to leave her and is now not paying his fair share of child support? What if she has no university education or skills that will allow her to land a job that can pay the bills? What if she has to work 15+ hours a day to try and make ends meat, only able to see her children breifly everyday. The United States is something like 25th in the world among industrial countries when it comes to child mortality rates. That figure is absoltely horrible for "the greatest country on earth". Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps the social system is not adequate enough to help out those who really need it? What makes you think that someone who is in a desperate situation is able to get out of it? These people don't come from the same privledged backgrounds that many of you do. Even if the mother has made some bad decisions, is that the fault of her children? Should they suffer because of her bad decisions? Are you now going to say that her children should be taken away from her if she cannot provide for them, even though she is a loving, caring mother who deos everything possible to for her children but she just cannot cut it without HELP? Some of the ignorant attitudes on these message boards scare me to death.



Do you have any solid evidence for believing in this "discouragement theory"? You seriously think that a single mother with 5 kids, that cannot makes ends meet, or is just barely able to, is going to put anymore strain on herself than she already has? Do you just assume that women plan and attempt to put themselves in these situations? Do you think she thinks that each consecutive kid that she has she thinks "I'll be OK because my welfare check will increase"? Do you have any compassion whatsoever? The fact is there are children living in poverty now. These hard times have been a fact of American life for a long time and they are only getting worse, not better.




Having running water, plumbing, and electricity is a luxury to you? These are basic necessities that nobody should be without.





Simply not true. People work more, longer hours now for less. Haven;t you heard about global neo-liberalism? Probably not. It's a global race to the bottom. An all out attack on all the social reforms that the progressives and labour movements fought long and hard for.

Expenses are constantly on the rise while real wages stagnate and or decline. Families used to be able to get by with one income earner. Not anymore. Where have you been? Both the mother and the father now have to bring home the dough for most families to get by. Family debt is also now astronomically higher than it once was.




Again, what factual information is this opinion based on? It is a common misconception taht everyone who lives below the poverty line does so because they are "stupid and lazy". For the large majority of those below the poverty line this is simply not true. Even it it was, you still have to ask yourself what you believe to be more important: stopping abusers from abusing the system, or helping out those in need, because you are always going to have both.


So many of you have such huge problems with paying taxes. Have you ever stopped and wondered why there is so much crime and poverty in the United States? There are certain places in teh country that are equivalent to third world slums. Cops won't even go into some places. You would think that the "greatest country in the world" would be able to doa little better for it's own people, don't you? Thes problems will not be solved through incarceration and punishment alone - the roots of these problems have to be systematically addressed. It will take generations to change.

Try taking a look at some of the Scandanavian countries. They are taxed at much higher rates than US states. These taxes are used to pay for social programs that help keep a vast larger propoertion of their populations above the poverty line. They have better labour standards, working conditions, holidays, environmental protections, and sustainable development practices. Oh, and guess what else they also did? They surpassed the United States in productivity in every single year from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s.

Some of you have such a narrow outlook on how a society can and should function that it is absolutely perplexing. Start with a clear mind and do some objective research instead of starting from a naïve and norrow outlook and trying to find any sort of information you can to prove your point. I don';t know about any of your own personal experiences, but if they are any indication of how some of you have formed your opinions, than I can only say that you obvisouly have not seen all you need to to be able to form such forceful and strong opinions on some of the topics at hand.


Edited, Tue Dec 21 15:16:29 2004 by Deloused