welfare vs wages

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

God save my soul - I'm actually agreeing with Joey and Dell


Zig, I'm seeing this as a realtively simplistic view. In principle, yes the appearance in this story is that the working poor need handouts in order to feed their families.

But to stand back an look objectively at the circumstance, I see a larger issue, and one that feeds directly into this entitlement culture which we've found ourselves in.

When we were coming up, after HS you either went to college, learned a trade, or went to work. there were generations upon generations of Detrioters born with a umbilical cord tied to the pension funds of GM, Ford, Chrysler. They were not going to school, they knew they could graduate and get a lifetime job with great benefits on the line. they would not live in a mansion, but would do just fine, so long as they kept their nose clean. It was there for them. The same way with trade Unions, and of course college grads.

Who worked in department/grocery stores/fast food restaurants? High schoolers, retirees, etc. Those jobs were and still are unskilled part time jobs for the most part. No one ever thought in a million years that running a cash register was a "career option", with beneifts and a wage capable of supporting a household.

Fast forward 30 years, and now look. Not only are people being praised for working at Walmart, but they are expecting to get paid like they're actually providing a skilled service to the community. Maybe the guaranteed lifetime employment opportunities are no longer around in abundance like they were back then, but you still need to apply yourself in order to enjoy a lifestyle you wish to live.

An electrician, for example, who graduated high school and went to trade school and work his way up as an apprentice shouldn't have to pay 10.00 for a Big Mac just because the HS drop out fry cook needs to make the same living wage as he to support a family.

I'm sure the guidance counselor at school never advised them that a Greeter at Walmart is a solid career choice.

These are, by and large, personal decisions that people make with respect to how they are choosing to live their lives. You do not have the right to pop out 4 kids and expect your cash register job to front the bill for it. So when you do, expect to go to the food bank to feed yourself, and stop blaming your employer.

my point is that in the old days, minimum wage was a living wage. it's not now. and the jobs have changed in this country over the last however many years. altho we still lead the world in manufacturing, we have less manufacturing jobs, and a lot more automation.
it's not that we have less skilled people, it's that many jobs no longer exist, due to sending work overseas, cutting staff and having people do more to cover the slack..
as for mcdonalds workers and wal-mart, a lot of those employees have college education in their background. they don't have a job in that field tho. it's a stereotype of the minimum wage earner to say they are all dropouts, with lots of kids.
mcdonals minimum wage used to mean something, it doesn't anymore. it's not because the work force isn't as smart, but because corporations have managed to keep the minimum wage from rising along with everything else.
we require people to work at wal-mart, mcdonalds and the like, don't we? how do we then blame them for working there, when they work in a necessary job?
we as taxpayers support them. wouldn't it be better if mcdonalds had, say, $3 billion less in profit, and paid a living wage (not a high on the hog wage, but an actual living wage) so that us taxpayers weren't on the hook, supporting people who are working. bad enough we have to support those who don't work.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my point is that in the old days, minimum wage was a living wage. it's not now. and the jobs have changed in this country over the last however many years. altho we still lead the world in manufacturing, we have less manufacturing jobs, and a lot more automation.
it's not that we have less skilled people, it's that many jobs no longer exist, due to sending work overseas, cutting staff and having people do more to cover the slack..
as for mcdonalds workers and wal-mart, a lot of those employees have college education in their background. they don't have a job in that field tho. it's a stereotype of the minimum wage earner to say they are all dropouts, with lots of kids.
mcdonals minimum wage used to mean something, it doesn't anymore. it's not because the work force isn't as smart, but because corporations have managed to keep the minimum wage from rising along with everything else.
we require people to work at wal-mart, mcdonalds and the like, don't we? how do we then blame them for working there, when they work in a necessary job?
we as taxpayers support them. wouldn't it be better if mcdonalds had, say, $3 billion less in profit, and paid a living wage (not a high on the hog wage, but an actual living wage) so that us taxpayers weren't on the hook, supporting people who are working. bad enough we have to support those who don't work.

We'll have to just agree to disagree on this one. I don't recall the minimum wage ever being a living wage. Ever. It applies to jobs that anyone can do and is targeted specifically to the unskilled labor market - again, almost exclusively to teens and retirees - folks that do not need health insurance or benefits.

Furthermore there is a plenty of work if you are willing to go after it. If someone has a college education, and is choosing to work a minimum wage job over making some sacrifices (temporary relocation, entry level position to develop experience, etc.) then that's on them.

I moved from the Marcellus shale region of western PA / West VA and I can tell you anyone with a pulse can make a small fortune there right now - they can't build motels fast enough to accommodate the demand for labor there - similar stories around Minot ND - in fact a friend of mine who had been out of work in his field of expertise just returned from there, and now has enough money to start his own business here.

So I'm not buying it. Yes, it's tough, but there is great paying work if you're willing to go to it. It's may not be convenient, but there is no guarantees in life.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

We'll have to just agree to disagree on this one. I don't recall the minimum wage ever being a living wage. Ever. It applies to jobs that anyone can do and is targeted specifically to the unskilled labor market - again, almost exclusively to teens and retirees - folks that do not need health insurance or benefits.

Furthermore there is a plenty of work if you are willing to go after it. If someone has a college education, and is choosing to work a minimum wage job over making some sacrifices (temporary relocation, entry level position to develop experience, etc.) then that's on them.

I moved from the Marcellus shale region of western PA / West VA and I can tell you anyone with a pulse can make a small fortune there right now - they can't build motels fast enough to accommodate the demand for labor there - similar stories around Minot ND - in fact a friend of mine who had been out of work in his field of expertise just returned from there, and now has enough money to start his own business here.

So I'm not buying it. Yes, it's tough, but there is great paying work if you're willing to go to it. It's may not be convenient, but there is no guarantees in life.

i posted a link a few weeks ago about the minimum wage, the paper was from a couple economists. it used to keep people above the poverty line, but no more. it hasn't kept pace over the years with inflation, etc. but then, neither have other wages, except for that at the top.
so, what once kept people from having to get aid no longer does.
and yes, there are jobs in places like north dakota. the trick is getting people there.
if someone can't make enough money to buy food, how do you expect them to get to north dakota?

i'll find that link.

[Danzig]

here you go. lots of charts, etc.

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp357...wage-increase/

■Those who would see wage increases do not fit some of the stereotypes of minimum-wage workers.
■Women would be disproportionately affected, comprising 56 percent of those who would benefit.
■Over 88 percent of workers who would benefit are at least 20 years old.
■Although workers of all races and ethnicities would benefit from the increase, non-Hispanic white workers comprise the largest share (about 54 percent) of those who would be affected.
■About 44 percent of affected workers have at least some college education.
■Around 55 percent of affected workers work full time, 70 percent are in families with incomes of less than $60,000, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married.
■The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family’s total income

[Danzig]

rudeboy, i hope you read over that whole paper, and take note of the majority of people that would be affected (not teens) etc.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

rudeboy, i hope you read over that whole paper, and take note of the majority of people that would be affected (not teens) etc.

This simply documents the rise in the # of baby boomers entering the work force from 1968 to present day. Yes, supply and demand dictates pricing/wages. When low/no skilled jobs are in abundance, the wages lower.

When there are too many unskilled laborers than there are unskilled jobs, the wages are lower.

They should be. That's how it's supposed to work.

How about addressing the problem, rather than blaming employers for it?

It is not an employer's responsibility to float the economy by overcharging their customers for products and services in order to make sure someone working the fryer at Mcdonalds in Queens can afford to live in an apartment.

This has been going on for almost 50 years, yet it has just been in recent times (the last 10 years or so) that there has been this clamoring of entitlement.

Somehow people who make irresponsible choices and who then provide little to no value to the society they occupy need to be compensated on the same level as those that take responsibility for themselves.

I'll say it again - NOBODY worked these jobs expecting to raise a family or even take care of themselves off the wages. As a kid, I worked countless minimum wage jobs - KFC to Golden Corral to stock boy in a grocery to lot attendant on car lots. EVERYBODY, with the exception of the managers, were there to make a few bucks - never in a million years expecting that the wages would sustain us - it's laughable. They were part time jobs, after school and on the weekends. the college students worked their class schedule and filled in when they didn't have class or needed to study. The Retirees typically worked the day shifts when the rest of us were in school.

Now, you have a generation of people, that have decided that this is all they want to do with themselves, and the onus is now on the employers to compensate them at an absurd rate in order for them to do so.

Let's try this - instead of demanding that employers overpay for your unskilled services, how about get an education, learn a trade, serve in the military to learn relateable civilian job skills and actually improve your life instead of forcing someone to give you a hand out?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

This simply documents the rise in the # of baby boomers entering the work force from 1968 to present day. Yes, supply and demand dictates pricing/wages. When low/no skilled jobs are in abundance, the wages lower.

When there are too many unskilled laborers than there are unskilled jobs, the wages are lower.

They should be. That's how it's supposed to work.

How about addressing the problem, rather than blaming employers for it?

It is not an employer's responsibility to float the economy by overcharging their customers for products and services in order to make sure someone working the fryer at Mcdonalds in Queens can afford to live in an apartment.

This has been going on for almost 50 years, yet it has just been in recent times (the last 10 years or so) that there has been this clamoring of entitlement.

Somehow people who make irresponsible choices and who then provide little to no value to the society they occupy need to be compensated on the same level as those that take responsibility for themselves.

I'll say it again - NOBODY worked these jobs expecting to raise a family or even take care of themselves off the wages. As a kid, I worked countless minimum wage jobs - KFC to Golden Corral to stock boy in a grocery to lot attendant on car lots. EVERYBODY, with the exception of the managers, were there to make a few bucks - never in a million years expecting that the wages would sustain us - it's laughable. They were part time jobs, after school and on the weekends. the college students worked their class schedule and filled in when they didn't have class or needed to study. The Retirees typically worked the day shifts when the rest of us were in school.

Now, you have a generation of people, that have decided that this is all they want to do with themselves, and the onus is now on the employers to compensate them at an absurd rate in order for them to do so.

Let's try this - instead of demanding that employers overpay for your unskilled services, how about get an education, learn a trade, serve in the military to learn relateable civilian job skills and actually improve your life instead of forcing someone to give you a hand out?

there's no way you read that study. else you'd know that many of the people working in lower wage jobs are educated, are skilled, are raising families, and aren't the teenie boppers you take them to be.
you'd also know that all wages, not just minimum wages are less than they should be.
i don't find 10 an hour to be absurd at all. we demand people work, they get jobs that pay squat, and then they still get federal aid because their corporations don't pay more than is required. which means we support them. you decry people needing support, and then you defend their low pay.
my husband works at the paper mill. lots of production hands there who make good money, and are no more educated or skilled than the guy working the fryer at mcdonalds. but they make good money. they watch toilet paper go by. the machine does all the work. i doubt there's some sort of magic going on that says if you watch toilet paper get made, your company can afford to pay you almost triple minimum wage, but if you make a burger, they can't afford to pay you...while making billions upon billions in profit, while us taxpayers take up the slack between a wage just above poverty and one below.

and little to no value? if people didn't work at mcd's and all these other places-tell me, who would cook millions of peoples meals every day?

the study discusses at length the positive impacts a min. wage hike would have on the economy.

[GenuineRisk]

I'm always fascinated by how low-income workers are always lazy slackers with too many kids who don't deserve any sort of financial security, but people like the Walton family, who did nothing other than get born to a particular guy, are upstanding individuals entitled to every penny they squeeze out of that underpaid work force. It's a cognitive dissonance in Americans I just don't understand.

http://gawker.com/the-simple-path-to...art-1467622860

The two proposals differ a bit in the details, but they use roughly the same mechanism to reach the same goal, so we'll go with Demos's proposal (described in full here) for ease of explanation. Basically, the argument is this: Walmart throws off enough cash in profits each year that it could easily raise the wages of its workers by about 50%, so that they all made about $25K per year, which is what activists are seeking. Currently, the company just uses that cash for other purposes. Like what? Well, Demos points out that Walmart spent $7.6 billion last year buying back its own stock shares, a maneuver designed to buoy the stock price and dividend payments. From the report:

There's this attitude that anything to raise stock prices and dividends is of course morally superior to paying workers a living wage, because filling the pockets of people who already have more money than they will ever spend is far more morally important that ensuring that the people who are the actual engine of the economy have money to keep that engine running by spending it on food, fuel and necessities.

The wealthy spend a much, much smaller percentage of their income than do the middle class- they end up hoarding large amounts of money, thus removing it from the economy. And there aren't enough wealthy people to make up for all of the middle class people who have now slid into the lower class and do not have disposable income. We are destroying our own nation in order to cater to the plutocrats. AND we are subsidizing them while we do it, because large numbers of Wal Mart employees are on government programs. So even people like me, who don't shop at Wal Mart, are supporting Wal Mart via our tax dollars, so the Waltons can hoard even more money. Yay!