Minimum Wage hike, you for it?

Bobzilla wrote: Well, we could TEACH personal responsibility. Butthat is something that must come from the home. Maybe we could CONDEMN all the blaming that goes on (It's not my fault I'm fat, my daddy didn't love me, They made me eat those burgers). That might be a start.

Like people who point their finger at the poor as being resource sponges all while immensely profitable corporations and the out sized military soak up more and more cash and resources? Hey, if we're against one why not the other?

Moving is expensive. It takes already having a job and savings and having connections where your going. I doubt a kid fresh out of highschool at 18 is going to have many for those options.

Migrant labor is pretty good at doing it because they've got families spread out all over the US, and because most farmers will provide housing for migrant labor.

Let me be clear, I've witnessed plenty of rags to riches stories in the refugees that my partner has resettled. People come to the USA with nothing, but through some government assistance and organizational networking they can rebuild their lives. That being said, they get assistance for rent, for home supplies and furniture, they get put on cash and food assistance, they have organizations helping them gets job and education. They get more than most native born Americans.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Dude... You realize that the guy you are telling to lighten up, is the same guy that offered extremely high paying jobs to a lot of people on this website recently, right? I think he's doing a pretty darned good job of helping society., and he speaks from first hand experience.

Good for him. Maybe he should rethink his rhetoric then.

Back to the real topic: This is about minimum wage. Minimum wage has remained static for four years while inflation has continued. Even if they have low motivation and don't work hard, they have not become less motivated and worse working, yet their pay level has effectively decreased.

Maybe you or your employer is ethical and believes in paying wages that keep up with inflation to take care of their employees. There are certainly employers out there who do not believe that; who see employees only as resources to be purchased for the lowest possible cost, and who will therefore pay them no more than they are legally mandated to do so.

I see nothing wrong with saying, "Let's bump minimum wage back up to match inflation/cost of living."

PHeller wrote: How does a kid out of highschool, from a poor urban family that lives mostly on government assistance, make enough money to move out on his own when the nearest factory job is an hours subway or bus ride away and still only pays $10/hr? Hell, the nearest grocery is probably 25 minutes away. He's got no experience working in a factory, he's got little work experience, and he can't just up and move because he's got no money. Even if he's a good kid who's stayed out of trouble, do you really expect him to get the job over someone twice his age with prior experience and a car of their own?

I find this perspective really offensive and completely insulting.

Are you really going to pull the "poor guy doesn't have a car" card on this site, where everyone knows darned well how to find decent transportation for cheap?

Can he get to a library? Internet is free (and therefore access to job postings, or better yet, the ability to start his own online business).

What's so great about a factory job, and why the heck would he have to travel across town for one?

PHeller wrote: Moving is expensive. It takes already having a job and savings and having connections where your going. I doubt a kid fresh out of highschool at 18 is going to have many for those options. Migrant labor is pretty good at doing it because they've got families spread out all over the US, and because most farmers will provide housing for migrant labor. Let me be clear, I've witnessed plenty of rags to riches stories in the refugees that my partner has resettled. People come to the USA with nothing, but through some government assistance and organizational networking they can rebuild their lives. That being said, they get assistance for rent, for home supplies and furniture, they get put on cash and food assistance, they have organizations helping them gets job and education. They get more than most native born Americans.

As was already said before, for every excuse, there's a solution.

It's up to the kid to decide if he wants to give excuses or find solutions.

I moved halfway across the country making $7.50/hr. Honestly, it wasn't terribly hard.

The minimum wage here is $10.25/hr., but practically any unskilled labourer can be working through a temp agency for $13/hr tomorrow morning. Take that for what it's worth.

Xceler8x wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Dude... You realize that the guy you are telling to lighten up, is the same guy that offered extremely high paying jobs to a lot of people on this website recently, right? I think he's doing a pretty darned good job of helping society., and he speaks from first hand experience.

Good for him. Maybe he should rethink his rhetoric then.

Maybe, just maybe, you could try using a little more honey and a lot less E36 M3 to attract people to your posts. If you don't understand that, then try this: How about not being a dick?

Beer Baron wrote: This is about minimum wage. Minimum wage has remained static for four years while inflation has continued.

That is correct.

Same way it has been every other time that the minimum wage has been static and inflation continued.

MW is not tied to inflation, and never has been. It usually stays static for 6-8 years between increases.

Bobzilla wrote: Maybe, just maybe, you could try using a little more honey and a lot less E36 M3 to attract people to your posts. If you don't understand that, then try this: How about not being a dick?

Arguing about human nature does not change human nature. Some people are more motivated than others. Some people are more willing to accept risk. Not all people's comfort level is the same, and that doesn't make them bad.

I take more risks and work harder than some. I take fewer risks and am lazier than others. Outside influences will only change me so much. I do not expect everyone to have the same level of risk acceptance or motivation that I have.

What was true 10 or 15 years ago is not necessarily true today. The amount of skill, work, and risk it took to find a good job in the late 90's was generally lower than it is today. Many people who are today "too lazy" or "not [whatever] enough" to get a job would have had no problems 15 years ago. Many people who had no problems 15 years ago would be "too lazy" to start a career today.

SVreX wrote: MW is not tied to inflation, and never has been. It usually stays static for 6-8 years between increases.

Sure. And we're coming up on year 5 now, and a change is not going to happen overnight. We're pretty much on schedule for this cycle's bump.

I don't expect MW to be tied to inflation. I do expect it get reevaluated and adjusted for inflation every few years. This seems like a reasonable time.

Actually... several states do adjust MW yearly based on the Cost of Living Index. I think that's a good system.

PHeller wrote: Moving is expensive. It takes already having a job and savings and having connections where your going. I doubt a kid fresh out of highschool at 18 is going to have many for those options. Migrant labor is pretty good at doing it because they've got families spread out all over the US, and because most farmers will provide housing for migrant labor. Let me be clear, I've witnessed plenty of rags to riches stories in the refugees that my partner has resettled. People come to the USA with nothing, but through some government assistance and organizational networking they can rebuild their lives. That being said, they get assistance for rent, for home supplies and furniture, they get put on cash and food assistance, they have organizations helping them gets job and education. They get more than most native born Americans.

Excuses. Nothing there but excuses. I have had several friends that moved with pennies in their pockets and hopes. They knew no one where they were moving but knew that there was a job there.

I think answering the OP topic is way too easy for us.

We always bring our more difficult complex problems into the discussion because they aren't as easy to solve. Government overreach, income disparity, high taxes, shrinking middle class, increasing student debt, shrinking retirement all seem to be behind a lot of animosity in these debates.

Beer Baron wrote: If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure?

Yes, without question. Insert the homily of choice here:

• You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
• God helps those who help themselves.
• Chance favors the prepared.
• The ant lives and the grasshopper starves in the winter.
• Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go.

If you are capable of supporting yourself - even partially - and are simply not willing to do what you are capable of, society is under absolutely zero obligation to support you.

Duke wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure?

Yes, without question. Insert the homily of choice here: * You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. * God helps those who help themselves. * Chance favors the prepared. * The ant lives and the grasshopper starves in the winter. * Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go. If you are capable of supporting yourself - even partially - and are simply not willing to do what you are capable of, society is under absolutely **zero** obligation to support you.

You know, this is extremely harsh. But it is exactly true. The bare minimum to survive, with the government benefits that are out there, is not hard to come by. Just throwing that out there.

Hi everybody.

How's everything going in this thread?

Duke wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure?

Yes, without question.

Well, we disagree then. I do not think that is a self correcting problem, but leads to social decay that harms society as a whole.

I should also have said that these people have limited motivation and that it will not increase. I think we all have limited motivation. Some just more than others. I think that at this point in time it takes significantly more risk acceptance and motivation to achieve the same level of success as it did 15 years ago.

PHeller wrote: Honestly, I'd rather take my chances 100 years ago than today. You didn't need a piece of paper to show your intelligence, you didn't need a resume to show your dedication to the job, and you didn't need to prove you were starving to get a free meal. 100 years ago this was the land of the opportunity.

Wait, I thought 100 years ago this was the land of robber barons who would screw over their mothers to make a buck, hire strike breakers, force kids to work 70 hour weeks, and bathe in the blood of the common man.

Which way is it, again?

mtn wrote: You know, this is extremely harsh. But it is exactly true. The bare minimum to survive, with the government benefits that are out there, is not hard to come by. Just throwing that out there.

I'd agree 100%. You could make absolutely no change to the current system and people would be able to survive, but I feel as thought some folks are advocating that current system is too much help.

Duke wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure?

Yes, without question. Insert the homily of choice here: * You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. * God helps those who help themselves. * Chance favors the prepared. * The ant lives and the grasshopper starves in the winter. * Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go. If you are capable of supporting yourself - even partially - and are simply not willing to do what you are capable of, society is under absolutely **zero** obligation to support you.

Ab-so-friggin-lutely.

Beer Baron wrote: Not all people's comfort level is the same, and that doesn't make them bad.

No, but everyone's general comfort level is still pretty high. Someone said "What would have happened 100 years ago?" and the answer is you would go chop some wood and shoot something to eat or you would die.

It makes for a couple generations of hard-working self starters who endeavor to make a place where no one has to die from cold or hunger. Then, when they succeed... a few generations later... it makes for generations of fat, comfortable, lazy motherberkeleyers waiting for someone to deliver a Snugee from QVC or something so they can get warm.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Dude... You realize that the guy you are telling to lighten up, is the same guy that offered extremely high paying jobs to a lot of people on this website recently, right? I think he's doing a pretty darned good job of helping society., and he speaks from first hand experience.

I never received a return email after 2-3 tries, don't know if anyone else had the same experience.

Oh, and if you do make minimum wage, good news!

A subscription costs just under 3 hours of your labor. Don't spend that money on food or housing, spend it with us (so we can buy food and housing)!

Here's where you subscribe:

https://secure.ablesoftsolutions.com/pdmg/SecurePages/NewSub.aspx?pi=grm

Duke wrote:

PHeller wrote: Honestly, I'd rather take my chances 100 years ago than today. You didn't need a piece of paper to show your intelligence, you didn't need a resume to show your dedication to the job, and you didn't need to prove you were starving to get a free meal. 100 years ago this was the land of the opportunity.

Wait, I thought 100 years ago this was the land of robber barons who would screw over their mothers to make a buck, hire strike breakers, force kids to work 70 hour weeks, and bathe in the blood of the common man. Which way is it, again?

Which way supports your current post? That one.