DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus These states cut unemployment aid early to supercharge hiring. It isn't working.

Things change, dude. Facts are facts.

Go back to when the min. wage was enacted. People worked full time jobs.

Now, we want McDonalds to pay some arbitrary $15 an hour?



I know what inflation is, by the way. And it's here. The FACTS I spoke of are just that: facts.

There are so minimal workers - full time that is - making minimum wage that it's laughable.

Part time jobs were never considered to be "livable wage" jobs.

I don't get why people in general are so hell bent on the poor staying poor. I mean I'm going to make my money rather they work or don't, rather they get paid more or don't, and rather minimum wage is $7 or $15 bucks an hour.

The only reason I can see is jealousy of sorts... Some people worked hard to get to $15 an hour and I can see how they might feel put out or cheated by others getting an express pass to the same money. But I think that is petty as hell. If a guy making $15 or $20 an hour is so bent out of shape over others getting that bump... MAYBE THOSE PEOPLE NEED THAT LOW PAYING SECOND JOB.

Go read the post I made. Ignorance of economics is no excuse.

And, yup, I called it. I said "some person will be along to tell me I don't care about the poor." So dumb.

And, also, show me how many people working 40 hour a week jobs are making minimum wage. Thanks in advance.

Maybe pit can google that for you.

What I don't get is with the shortage of good tradespeople (electricians, plumbers, machinists, etc) we somehow still have this min wage debate. You have employers that are desperate to pay people money to work AND people that can't scrape together a living wage? If someone is sick and tired of getting paid nothing to flip burgers, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to get trained up in a trade and have a job waiting for them, should they stick with it (this is where the gov't or even big corps could/should help out).

I'm not saying it's all on the employees or employers (there's a shared responsibility I'm sure),

Right, prices have gone up. While wages didn't. Like has been happening for a few decades now. The federal minimum wage hasn't' changed in 11 years.

And again, most of those jobs aren't full time because the employer doesn't want them to be full time.

Nobody said that people working part time should be able to make a living on part time work.

You see, you're one of the very people that love to use excuses when it suits your purpose.

According to you things change when it comes to people at the bottom of the economic ladder making a living because "things change".

Then you'll turn around in the next breath and claim that the second amendment can't possibly change even though when it was written into the constitution all they had was single shot muskets and pistols.

So firearms have changed drastically and that makes no difference. Politicians have bastardized minimum wage over time to in no way reflect what it is supposed to do and you're fine with it. Go figure.

I think you're missing what the minimum wage law was intended to accomplish. It was to establish the "minimum" standard of living. People in the trades should make well above that. Saying that people can get training or can move up in a better field in no way changes what minimum wage is supposed to do.

The working class has just been programmed to accept less. It has gotten to the point that many people working in the trades actually believe that a burger flipper being able to make a living is his enemy. So much so, he thinks that's a bigger threat to his or her way of life than billionaires paying a lower tax rate than he are.

This is what was written. To be fair, I assumed you meant min wage when working full time (multiple part-time jobs) should be a livable wage... but that's not what this exchange meant. I don't agree with the idea that someone who works only part-time (somewhere SIGNIFICANTLY south of 40/week) should be guaranteed a living wage. Where that cutoff is exactly, I don't know and I don't really care to nitpick that right now.

I do understand that, but I also feel that it's a disservice to the debate when you're talking about people being able to make a living but ignoring that there are fairly accessible jobs that will pay well above min wage going unfilled.

Every job should pay a living wage. So if you have two jobs that add up to 40 hours or more, you should be making a living wage between the two of them. That is exactly why the law was written in the first place. If you work full time, that's 40 hours plus, you should make a living.

Not opulent by any means. But enough to be able to pay rent, buy your food and have transportation.

You are correct that I quoted the wrong statement by arch. Here's a far more appropriate one.



Even after proving what the minimum wage is supposed to be for he still acts as if it isn't.

So you think pointing out that the minimum wage is a standard set to insure that no person working 40 hours a week an America be deprived a living wage is somehow a disservice to the thread?

Yeah, I assumed that's what you meant but perhaps others did not. That's why I pointed out that quote.


No, that's not what I said. I said ignoring that situation (relatively accessible jobs that are chronically under-filled) in a debate about people needing to make a living is a disservice to the debate.

That would mean that you are ignoring the fact that there has been a base line established for what the minimum pay for the lowest level jobs require. A living wage.

If you change the conversation to "Well, they could do better" it absolves the fact that a living wage is a base line for every American job where a person works full time. Trade jobs are jobs that increase your level of and living and income based on what the base level of a minimum wage job is meant to accomplish.

You see, over time in this forum this conversation has evolved. Years ago it was the "Those people on welfare are getting too much in benefits. No wonder nobody wants to work. Only those who work should be able to make a living."

Now it's evolved into, "Those people who work shouldn't make a living if they are at the bottom of the economic scale." So it's gotten the point now they promote that even certain workers don't deserve to make a living.

Those same people that work low paying jobs actually collect many of the same benefits they used to claim were the problem. While the corporations rake in billions in profits, the taxpayers actually have to contribute billions upon billions in benefits to the workers of those corporations.

Yet they see the wages of those workers at the bottom as the potential problem and make excuses why there should be a subclass of workers undeserving of making a living. I think they're focusing on the wrong problem and I certainly do not wish to aid them on that journey.

No. What I said doesn't mean that at all. As I said in a previous post, I do understand the purpose behind minimum wage.

Honestly, I stopped reading at the end of the above quote because I don't want to put significantly more effort into reading your posts than you seem to put into mine.

I certainly put time into reading your posts. But I think what you're suggesting diverts away from the actual topic. If minimum wage jobs offered a living wage there would be no need to discuss why the solution is getting a better paying job.

Yes, the option would be there. But at that point it would only be an option and not a requirement to make a living.

Agreed. And they do. Find a carpenter, plumber, welder, electrician, ditch digger, construction worker, etc that DOESN'T make $20 or more an hour. You can't. I can't.

People making min. wage are teens, or people standing at counters running a cash register, or stocking shelves - part time. And if they actually show up for work and do a good job, they get a raise.



I think the issue is being convoluted here.

Part time jobs are not, and never were, designed/designated to be 'livable wage'.

And further, there aren't many FULL time workers making min. wage.

Companies are hiring, here, at anywhere from $12 (mcdonalds - to $20 - starting.

Those $20 an hour jobs - full time with benefits. Wanna work over time, or Sat? $30 an hour. Sunday o.t. if you want to do it, is $40 an hour. Want to work a holiday? $60 an hour. (by the way, these are production jobs.

Many places are hiring for weekend only shifts starting at $20 an hour, for Sat - for 6 or 12 hour shifts. $25 for Sunday shifts.

Our church can't find a single person to do small routine maint. at $25 an hour - set your own hours.

Quit talking about minimum wage jobs as if they are full time jobs.

Many either minimum wage or close to minimum wage jobs are full time. Not nearly all. Most actually aren't. Even full time jobs paying $10 to $12 dollars an hour are not a living wage job. That's the entire point. When minimum wage jobs pay so low, so much so that even much higher pay is below the poverty line, is the very reason that minimum wage was designed to pay a wage that puts people who work 40 hours at a living wage scale.

It doesn't do that and I proven to you why minimum wage was created and its purpose.

When you have the ability to say, "But minimum wage jobs aren't full time jobs" and use that as an excuse why those making well above minimum wage still aren't making a living wage, you have just described the problem.

Do I need to show you again why minimum wage exists and what it is meant to accomplish?

What I'd love is for you to show me how many people are working full time jobs at min. wage.

In the 1930's there was a great depression, before I was born, some of the anecdotes over the years, there were no jobs, no money in the economy, the system had failed, one of the things to come out of it was the WWccc? what were the initials? Well I read about it, it was a conseration work force, where young folks left homes with nothing to go work for the government, building things like dams and national parks, and were paid a little, and forced to send some of that pay back to their homes with nothing.

Fact, that seems to be the start of the idea of, bugles to wake in the morning, and, well they had a rigid daily schedule of work, but it was light, with about 4-5 hours of breaks 3+ after dinner.

Now, in the 1940s there was the war, and anecdotes I've heard were of Gi's who bought the only home on the market in the county at the time, so maybe a housing shortage, but that's the system. Also in some decade was the tv show the honeymooners.
A theme of the tv show the honeymooners, was inability to get ahead because of the system, and I've heard or read the anecdote that, the star of the show based a lot of the dialogue on what conversatons he had heard from his dad in the 30's or earlier decade.

I don't know much about the 50's and 60's maybe they were freaking heaven and the system made everybody rich.

Some time in the 1970's there was a time when Jimmy Carter was president, well it wasn't the super best time.
Sometime there was a gas shortage and well, they dropped the speed limit on highways it used to be faster previously, under the ruse to save gasoline nationwide.

I'd hear anecdotes from the older ones, how just constant droning about the jobs, the pay, the unions, the insurance, they system was doing people wrong.

Then there were the 80's and people look back and claim it was a time people got rich, I think it was more like, the rich got rich, but the system failed a lot of people.

I read an article that read the 80s real end was when Bush took over for Reagan in 88' and it had a point, but in the 90s there may have been a computer bubble, but the stock market dropped once and all the savings and loans (used to be like banks) disappeared in one month.
but the system was broken, or set up to break it seemed.

Then, the 00's and it seemed like there was a war anytime any Bush was a president, for any 60 day period, and there was a dottcomm bubble. Which failed, and it seemed like the system was set up to fail, whether Enron, or Bernie Madoff whatever.

Then in the 10's 2010s, following the Obama years, the time of Big government money printing had begun, and of course I forgot, the housing surplus selling, and then housing boom going bust which led to a lack of housing.

So, in the recents, the freedom takeover, then the, well what would one call the shutdown of every restaurant in the usa, indoor restaurant? And then, the, what else is going on, are they manipulating the money, OH! at the very least the loss complete loss in any trust in any elections. So, still seems like we have a pattern that a system is set, to fail and when it fails, peoples lives get worse.
But
The expectation is be super excited to run headlong into the next cycle of the same system.

A ton of people work a ton of jobs whether people want to admit it or not.
How many hours does someone have to work until someone wants to admit what a full time job is. Where is this hypothetical world of part time jobs at a gas stations, fast food places etc. without a living wage where these 24 hour stores change employees every 5 hours on the regular. This is not 1983, those are not meant to be full time jobs.

I don't know if anyone has seen the Obama years democrat financial plan, where Detroit autoworker jobs were replaced with fast food jobs and they called it manufacturing and claimed the jobs came back.

So 2 parent families work 60 hours a piece, and pay nearly 70% of the 2nd persons income on daycare childcare alone, but these are not full time jobs.

If you take 168 hour week, insert a 6 day work week.
subtract 45 hours of sleep, over 6 days, excluding the 7th. which eventually gets backloaded.

subtract 10.92 hours, for 40 minutes commuting each way and only 20 minutes a day rescheduling meals around work schedules,
You are left with 112.08 waking hours in a week,
another 2.6% of that, will be spent at work extending the day to not count lunches, but we'll forget that because that is just pleasant time.
112.08 waking hours in the week,
This won't even include the nights sleep the 7th day if someone gets one day off in the week.
So basically 105 waking hours in a week.

So the average American working 60 hours a week (wink wink nudge nudge, everyone knows it's more than that.)

is already spending 57.14% of their available waking life, On the clock!
Which leaves near 43 percent to engage in the ole work life balance of AnytThing Else!

You know, family, Children, Healthcare, Maitenence, Home repair, conversations, holiday planning, leisure, car washing, dog walking, sex, music, or even going to the John.

And in thanks for this, the avg American, is getting ahead, everyone is getting so much better as the years go by, so much more wealth it's almost hard to hide it.
Wait!
That's sarcasm, because that's not real, that's what the corporations are getting. (super wealthy)

So the system is designed to tell you you need to work harder, longer, Work makes free!

But in reality it's not so. So how much, How many waking hours of a man's year, do these think should be devoted to earning, to achieve a work life balance?
90 percent? 94 hour work week?

CCC

Civilian Conservation Corps

Yep 3Cs, my grandfather served with them.

jc

The thing about a living wage is that what's livable is different for everyone. 1 parent vs two parents. 1 kid vs 4 kids. Are people supposed to get paid based on how many kids they have instead of their skillset?

In truth, there aren't that many.. But that's not the test.. The real test is how many employers are sticking with Min Wage rather than prevailing wage.

That's because you're trying to focus on "minimum wage" only rather than look at how many underpaid jobs are based on a minimum wage. Let me bold the part that's important so maybe you can better understand here.

Minimum wage was established in order to set the lowest wage an employer can pay an employee that provides a living wage based on working full time.

So what you seem to be avoiding is the fact that jobs paying $10 an hour get away with that because the minimum wage is even lower. The same goes for jobs paying $12 an hour. Neither of which is a living wage. So I guess your choice is to either address the actual conversation or keep trying to focus on the starting point of it. The entire problem stems from the current minimum wage. Hopefully you'll actually engage in the compete topic.

And let's get to another point you made. "Minimum wage is only for kids making spending money".

That's a generalization that only hold some merit. There is school nine months a year. Most fast food places open up at 6:00 to serve breakfast now. Which mean for nine months of the year, from 6:00 A.M. until after 3:00 P.M. those "kids trying to make spending money" aren't available for work. Now once again you'll focus on the fact they "are making more than minimum wage" but they are still making well below what minimum wage was meant to accomplish.

And let's look at how many kids are "just trying to make spending money". Are you trying to tell me that kids are no longer trying to save money for a car? They're not trying to save money for college? They're not trying to save money for when they are grown so they can move out of their parents house? If you look at the shrinking middle class and average salaries in many parts of our society it's easy to see that a lot of parents aren't "gifting" their children cars.

And even if it is spending money. I could go to a movie theater for $2.50 in the mid 70's. Even then when I worked I was paid above minimum wage. Even the farmers were paying over minimum wage. So it would take me working an hour or slightly less to pay for a movie ticket.

AMC is the largest movie theater chain in America. Right now an adult movie ticket (13 and over) during the evening is $13.69. now there's is student discount day on Thursdays only when the cost is $12.69.

https://movietheaterprices.com/amc-ticket-prices/

So either you promote that wages should be higher or you promote that working kids these days have much less buying power than kids in the 1970's did.

I won't even get into how a car of the age and mileage that I could buy in the 1970's for $1000 would now cost a kid $5000.

No. there is an established reason minimum wage was established which has been posted over and over again. A basic minimum standard of living. Your skill set enters into it at salaries above that.

It's not "If you're not a skilled worker you don't deserve to be able to afford to live".

Does not use reason or intellectiual abilities in their line of work.

So, Congress fits

Ask those who keep using that term as an excuse why some American workers do not deserve to make a living wage.