1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

EconomyFollow

#102 Oct 16 2015 at 8:58 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Heaven forbid we provide a means for people to stand on their own two feet for once.

You mean like jobs that pay living wages? Yeah, Democrats are *totally* against that.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#103 Oct 16 2015 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
id you mean to say "wouldn't have a comprehensive immigration plan"
No, I meant we WOULD have a comprehensive immigration plan.

A major argument AGAINST gun control is that there are too many illegal guns in the streets and it's impossible to gather and remove them all. If the GOP saw illegal immigrants as "too many to gather and deport", they wouldn't oppose immigration measures such as DACA. They would just accept them, like they do with the illegal guns. Any movement to remove guns is a slippery slope to legal gun owners losing their guns. If the same logic were applied to immigration, then any movement to remove illegal immigrants would be a slippery slope of denying legal immigration.
#104 Oct 16 2015 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Heaven forbid we provide a means for people to stand on their own two feet for once.

You mean like jobs that pay living wages? Yeah, Democrats are *totally* against that.


A: What exactly do you mean when you say "living wage"? That's just clever sounding, but vague rhetoric.

B: Explain to me again how we're going to force people who are paying illegal immigrants under the table to pay them this "living wage"? Aren't you just going to in the demand for "less than living wage" labor and thus make the whole problem worse?


You have to look at the current status quo. And that is that there are currently zero labor laws that actually protect illegal immigrants (especially undocumented immigrants) from being paid low wages. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only way you can fix this is if you actually legalize their status. And that requires some form of guest worker program. Which the Democrats have opposed over and over and over. The Democrats would much rather we just maintain sanctuary cities where the government just looks the other way while the illegals are being paid under the table. I'm not sure how that is better in any way.


If you're seriously holding out for "let's pass a law that mandates a $15-18 minimum wage, and then just eliminate all immigration laws so that anyone can walk across the boarder with no passport of visa and earn that much", you're going to be waiting a very long time. How about we actually try for something realistic instead?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Oct 16 2015 at 9:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
id you mean to say "wouldn't have a comprehensive immigration plan"
No, I meant we WOULD have a comprehensive immigration plan.

A major argument AGAINST gun control is that there are too many illegal guns in the streets and it's impossible to gather and remove them all.


No. That's not true at all. I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, except maybe in a very sideways manner in the form of "if you criminalize gun ownership, then only criminals will own guns". Um... But that has nothing to do with the number of illegally owned guns. It's a true statement even if that number is 1.

The argument against gun control is that gun ownership is a protected right, and that guns allow people to protect themselves, and thus should not be taken away without far more cause than "we don't like people owning guns".

Quote:
If the GOP saw illegal immigrants as "too many to gather and deport", they wouldn't oppose immigration measures such as DACA.


Huh? No. That's not true at all. That's actually kind of insane. I don't doubt that the strategy of the Left with regard to illegal immigration is to make it as easy to enter illegally and stay illegally as possible so as to make the problem as big as possible, in the hopes that this will require some kind of solution. And I'm not really sure what they want with that anyway, total open borders? More likely the Left just wants to keep the problem as big as possible so that it can raise as much awareness as possible, so they can continue to use it to promote their "The GOP is a bunch of heartless, racist, phobic, anti-immigrants" narrative. They can't possibly actually think allowing millions of people to live here illegally (or just remove the legal restrictions on immigration entirely) is a good idea. So it must just be about the value of the issue politically.

Which I happen to think is not only incredibly short sighted, it's also incredibly harmful to the millions of people they're allowing to suffer in the limbo state they've created and perpetuated, just so they can use them as victims. That's just callous. But that's what the Left does. Victims are valuable to them. Why wonder that they want to make as many of them as possible?

Um... But no. The more illegals there are, the bigger the problem is, and the more the GOP wants to fix that problem. I think you're missing that this is the real reason for wanting more illegals. Cause, as I mentioned above, the more the GOP makes this a major part of their platform, the more the Dems can paint them in a negative light.

Quote:
They would just accept them, like they do with the illegal guns.


Uh... No. And no. Has GOP pressure to fix the border and resolve the immigration problems increased or decreased as the number of illegal immigrants has increased? It's increased. Clearly, you've got it backwards.

And we don't accept illegal guns. Where the heck to you get this stuff?


Quote:
Any movement to remove guns is a slippery slope to legal gun owners losing their guns.


If by "remove guns" you mean "make guns that were legal to own yesterday illegal to own today", then yes. Because that's exactly what it is. I assumed when you said "illegal guns", you were referring to things like automatic weapons, grenades, artillery, and a host of things that have not been legally allowed for private ownership for like a century or more. Or, you might have been referring to firearms used to commit a crime, perhaps. Or firearms owned illegally (by say felons, or the insane). Those are illegal guns. We don't accept them at all.

Quote:
If the same logic were applied to immigration, then any movement to remove illegal immigrants would be a slippery slope of denying legal immigration.


Again, that makes no sense. I get that many on the Left want to equate opposition to illegal immigrants as opposition to legal immigrants, but that assumes that the person in opposition just hates immigrants. Which, while a lovely bit of projective narrative, isn't the driving force for opposing illegal immigration. We oppose it because... wait for it... it's illegal. As long as our immigration laws say that there's a set process for legally immigrating to this country, then we kinda should uphold those laws, or else they have no meaning. And the irony is that by enforcing the immigration laws, you're actually helping the legal immigrants. It's incredibly unfair to all of those people who went through the hopes of legally coming to this country, to have a bunch of people who broke the law doing so to be rewarded with permanent status. You get that legal and illegal immigrants are not the same "side" of this issue, right? I would hope so, at least.

If you want to argue for changing the immigration laws themselves, that's a whole different issue. But then, those who qualify under the new law are no longer "illegal immigrants", and we don't have a problem with them. The issue is that this isn't what the Left want's to do. They want to just not enforce the laws with regard to illegal immigration, create a problem, and then blame conservatives when we want to actually enforce the laws. You really don't get that this is all about abusing these people for a minor political gain? That's what the Left is doing here. It has nothing to do with wanting to help these people live better lives. If that was the case, they'd join Republicans on some kind of visa changes to help these people.

You really don't understand the issue, do you?

Edited, Oct 16th 2015 8:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#106 Oct 17 2015 at 6:47 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts

Gbaji wrote:
And the irony is that by enforcing the immigration laws, you're actually helping the legal immigrants.
And the irony is that by enforcing the immigration gun laws, you're actually helping the legal immigrants gun owners.

Gbaji wrote:

No. That's not true at all. I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, except maybe in a very sideways manner in the form of "if you criminalize gun ownership, then only criminals will own guns". Um... But that has nothing to do with the number of illegally owned guns. It's a true statement even if that number is 1.

The argument against gun control is that gun ownership is a protected right, and that guns allow people to protect themselves, and thus should not be taken away without far more cause than "we don't like people owning guns".


Gbaji wrote:


Uh... No. And no. Has GOP pressure to fix the border and resolve the immigration problems increased or decreased as the number of illegal immigrants has increased? It's increased. Clearly, you've got it backwards.

And we don't accept illegal guns. Where the heck to you get this stuff?
There is no *single* argument, that's why I said "A Major argument". If you're that out of touch of the debate that you haven't heard this argument, then that is telling in itself. In any case, the whole "it'll only affect law abiding citizens" is an extension of "too many illegal guns", else how would the criminals obtain them in an environment where law abiding citizens are following the law?

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? No. That's not true at all. That's actually kind of insane. I don't doubt that the strategy of the Left with regard to illegal immigration is to make it as easy to enter illegally and stay illegally as possible so as to make the problem as big as possible, in the hopes that this will require some kind of solution. And I'm not really sure what they want with that anyway, total open borders? More likely the Left just wants to keep the problem as big as possible so that it can raise as much awareness as possible, so they can continue to use it to promote their "The GOP is a bunch of heartless, racist, phobic, anti-immigrants" narrative. They can't possibly actually think allowing millions of people to live here illegally (or just remove the legal restrictions on immigration entirely) is a good idea. So it must just be about the value of the issue politically.

Which I happen to think is not only incredibly short sighted, it's also incredibly harmful to the millions of people they're allowing to suffer in the limbo state they've created and perpetuated, just so they can use them as victims. That's just callous. But that's what the Left does. Victims are valuable to them. Why wonder that they want to make as many of them as possible?

Um... But no. The more illegals there are, the bigger the problem is, and the more the GOP wants to fix that problem. I think you're missing that this is the real reason for wanting more illegals. Cause, as I mentioned above, the more the GOP makes this a major part of their platform, the more the Dems can paint them in a negative light.
You're intentionally conflating illegal immigrants who were brought over as infants who are already embedded within our society with the guy who jumped the fence last week. Arguing for the former isn't the same as arguing for open boarders. If the GOP focused on the first group as they do "law abiding" gun owners, they would support programs such as DACA.


Gbaji wrote:
If by "remove guns" you mean "make guns that were legal to own yesterday illegal to own today", then yes. Because that's exactly what it is. I assumed when you said "illegal guns", you were referring to things like automatic weapons, grenades, artillery, and a host of things that have not been legally allowed for private ownership for like a century or more. Or, you might have been referring to firearms used to commit a crime, perhaps. Or firearms owned illegally (by say felons, or the insane). Those are illegal guns. We don't accept them at all.
Any movement to remove any type of firearms or regulation to ensure only law abiding citizens posses firearms becomes a slippery slope to legal abiding gun owners losing the ability to posses ANY firearm.

#107 Oct 17 2015 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Heaven forbid we provide a means for people to stand on their own two feet for once.

You mean like jobs that pay living wages? Yeah, Democrats are *totally* against that.


A: What exactly do you mean when you say "living wage"? That's just clever sounding, but vague rhetoric.

A living wage? That means working a job and making enough money to pay for housing, utilities and food (and perhaps even a little more for savings, and entertainment). Not necessarily restricted to those with higher education. It varies by area, of course; $10/hr for a 40 hour week may work in, say, Idaho, but that wouldn't get you by even where I live.

Quote:
If you're seriously holding out for "let's pass a law that mandates a $15-18 minimum wage, and then just eliminate all immigration laws so that anyone can walk across the boarder with no passport of visa and earn that much", you're going to be waiting a very long time. How about we actually try for something realistic instead?

That doesn't sound like a reasonable idea at all. What kind of idiot proposed that?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#108 Oct 19 2015 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
What kind of idiot proposed that?
GENERIC LIBERALS! LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS! Growl spit snarl liberals.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Oct 19 2015 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
That doesn't sound like a reasonable idea at all. What kind of idiot proposed that?

I'm sure someone has proposed it somewhere. But it's not part of the Democratic party platform, has never been suggested as legislation and never featured in any Democratic immigration reform plans.

But, you know, someone at a rally was probably holding a sign or else it was posted in a Huffington Post comments section before so let's use that as our strawman.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Oct 19 2015 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Are you all blind? gbaji proposed it!




















lolbijoumadeavisionjoke
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#111 Oct 19 2015 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I mean, yeah, there are the minimum wage bills...New York, for example, one of the highest cost-of-living states. That's a state's rights issue, you know, something championed by the GOP.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#112 Oct 20 2015 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
If they don't like the cost of living, they can just move to another best-city-in-the-world and they'll unquestioningly get paid better.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#113 Oct 22 2015 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
And the irony is that by enforcing the immigration gun laws, you're actually helping the legal immigrants gun owners.


Yes. Enforce existing laws. What the gun control "side" is arguing for, and what the pro-gun side is arguing against, is new laws. The problem the pro-gun side has on this, is that instead of focusing on enforcing existing laws designed to prevent criminals and insane people from obtaining firearms, the gun control side just uses every shooting event as an excuse to try to pass laws that restrict all people's ability to obtain firearms.

When you pass laws restricting the size of magazines, or the style of weapon, or handguns, or long guns, or whatever, you're restricting those for all potential owners, not just the criminals and the insane. And that's the problem.

Quote:
There is no *single* argument, that's why I said "A Major argument".


It's not a major argument. It's not even a minor argument.

Quote:
If you're that out of touch of the debate that you haven't heard this argument, then that is telling in itself.


Um... Oh. I've never heard this argument. Ever. In like a couple decades of arguing gun control with people on both sides, I have never once heard someone argue that we shouldn't pass gun control legislation because we already have so many illegal guns on the street that it just wouldn't do any good. Did you just make this up on the spot?

Quote:
In any case, the whole "it'll only affect law abiding citizens" is an extension of "too many illegal guns", else how would the criminals obtain them in an environment where law abiding citizens are following the law?


They're different things. It's about enforcement. I have no problem with law enforcement actually following up on things like a private person who's buying 50 guns a week. That person is almost certainly turning around and selling them illegally on the street. I have no problem with law enforcement cracking down on illegal modifications to firearms (typically to make them fully automatic). I have no problem with them spending effort investigating these sorts of things. But that's not what we're talking about with gun control. Gun control advocates argue for things like "you can only own X number of guns", or "your guns can only hold Y number of bullets", or "Your gun can't have a certain type of appearance that we've decided is just too scary", or "we're going to make you jump through a ton of hops to buy a gun", etc, etc, etc.

There are plenty of existing laws that could put a massive dent in the total number of gun fatalities in the US. We don't need more.

Quote:
You're intentionally conflating illegal immigrants who were brought over as infants who are already embedded within our society with the guy who jumped the fence last week.


No. I'm not. People who argue that we can't check to see if *anyone* is here legally are though. Because you're using the possibility that we might put someone who's been here since they were an infant in danger of being deported, to prevent the possibility that we might catch and deport the guy who jumped the fence last week.

Quote:
Arguing for the former isn't the same as arguing for open boarders.


When your proposal is to not check anyone for legal status, then yes, you are.

Tell you what. Get back to me when you can find a single sanctuary city that limits it's protection to just those people who've been here since they were infants. I'm not going to wait, because you can't do it, no matter how long you take.

Quote:
If the GOP focused on the first group as they do "law abiding" gun owners, they would support programs such as DACA.


What happens in terms of a deportation hearing for someone who's been here since they were an infant is one thing. My issue is with using that very small number of people to hide the much larger number of folks who came here illegally as adults.

I'll also point out that I don't happen to think that being brought here as an infant should make you magically immune to our immigration laws.

Quote:
Any movement to remove any type of firearms or regulation to ensure only law abiding citizens posses firearms becomes a slippery slope to legal abiding gun owners losing the ability to posses ANY firearm.


Not "ANY", but the majority of those proposed by gun control advocates do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Oct 22 2015 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Heaven forbid we provide a means for people to stand on their own two feet for once.

You mean like jobs that pay living wages? Yeah, Democrats are *totally* against that.


A: What exactly do you mean when you say "living wage"? That's just clever sounding, but vague rhetoric.

A living wage? That means working a job and making enough money to pay for housing, utilities and food (and perhaps even a little more for savings, and entertainment).


So for everyone? Teens? Students? Young people just starting life? My issue is with the conflation of the idea of a "living wage" and "minimum wage". Yes, ideally, those who need to support a household should be able to earn a living wage. But they should accomplish that by increasing the value of their labor and thus earning that living wage. When you say "living wage", but the proposal is raising the minimum wage, you're basically pulling a bait and switch. And one which actually hurts the folks who need to earn more in order to support a household.

Quote:
Not necessarily restricted to those with higher education. It varies by area, of course; $10/hr for a 40 hour week may work in, say, Idaho, but that wouldn't get you by even where I live.


Again. Who gets this? Everyone? Doesn't that defeat the purpose then?

If you are required to pay a teen working part time after school the same minimum wage per hour that you've decided an adult supporting a household must earn in order to provide for said household, then you're going to have problems. You will deflate the relative value of that "living wage" because you've also made it your "minimum wage". Get it?

The best way to maximize the number of heads of households being able to earn enough is to *not* mandate wage levels for folks who are not heads of households. I get that this is counter intuitive, but it is true.

Quote:
Quote:
If you're seriously holding out for "let's pass a law that mandates a $15-18 minimum wage, and then just eliminate all immigration laws so that anyone can walk across the boarder with no passport of visa and earn that much", you're going to be waiting a very long time. How about we actually try for something realistic instead?

That doesn't sound like a reasonable idea at all. What kind of idiot proposed that?


Go and google it for yourself. The idea that a higher wage will somehow reduce illegal immigration because it'll encourage US workers to take the "jobs no one wants to do", because they pay more now is a pretty common argument out there. It's absurd, but it's out there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Oct 22 2015 at 11:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Quote:
If you are required to pay a teen working part time after school the same minimum wage per hour that you've decided an adult supporting a household must earn in order to provide for said household, then you're going to have problems. You will deflate the relative value of that "living wage" because you've also made it your "minimum wage". Get it?


Same old ****, different day. Don't pay more because it might mean somewhere, somehow, a teenager working part time after school will get paid an almost respectable amount of money and we can't have that. A handful of people who already make more than $10 per hour might feel less important and that is a serious problem because reasons.

Quote:
So for everyone? Teens? Students? Young people just starting life?


Why not? Why shouldn't these people make more money? I really want to know a real reason for this. Did their parents and grandparents come out of high school destroying the economy when they earned enough to support themselves starting out? Why shouldn't this generation and future generations have that same opportunity?

Edited, Oct 23rd 2015 5:27am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#116 Oct 23 2015 at 3:57 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
So for everyone? Teens? Students? Young people just starting life?
Why not? That's how you claim marriage benefits work. Theoretically, anyone of them could be the head of a household.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#117 Oct 23 2015 at 4:07 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji: Still of a mind that all people everywhere and all locations everywhere are all exactly the same and if people only try harder they are absolutely guaranteed financial success.












tl;dr:

gbaji, lying or stupid
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#118 Oct 23 2015 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
So for everyone? Teens? Students? Young people just starting life?
Why not? That's how you claim marriage benefits work. Theoretically, anyone of them could be the head of a household.
Pffft hahaha, expecting consistency.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119 Oct 23 2015 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In the olden days, a sixteen year old would already have a wife, four kids and a five bedroom split-level in the suburbs!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#120 Oct 23 2015 at 11:02 AM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
Listening to the radio yesterday, they played a short clip from "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" from 1968. So, 47 years ago. It was Pat Paulsen (Paulson?), a comedian who's gimmick was running for president, and a man with as deadpan an expression and delivery as you can imagine. He sarcastically said that he couldn't understand why anyone would vote for him when all he had was a foolproof plan to solve [insert issues of the day], and you could have substituted only one word and his statement would be 100% relevant today. The one word being either "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" for "Vietnam." The same four big issues in 1968 are the same four big issues in 2015.

Anyway, I don't know what that has to do with anything because it's time to order lunch and I lost my train of thought.

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#121 Oct 23 2015 at 5:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Quote:
If you are required to pay a teen working part time after school the same minimum wage per hour that you've decided an adult supporting a household must earn in order to provide for said household, then you're going to have problems. You will deflate the relative value of that "living wage" because you've also made it your "minimum wage". Get it?


Same old ****, different day. Don't pay more because it might mean somewhere, somehow, a teenager working part time after school will get paid an almost respectable amount of money and we can't have that.


Except you're not asking for a "respectable amount" of money. You're asking for a "living wage", which was defined as enough to pay for housing, food, transportation, etc. Basically, enough to provide all the living expenses of the person, and perhaps their SO and even children. A teenager going to school and living under their parent's roof, does not need to earn that much.

Quote:
A handful of people who already make more than $10 per hour might feel less important and that is a serious problem because reasons.


Sigh. Because you will deflate the relative value of that "living wage" because you've also made it your "minimum wage". What you're proposing is great for kids in school, working part time, and living off their parents. It's terrible for people living on their own and actually trying to support themselves. The minimum wage should be the minimum amount we pay to a dependent child working part time. Period.

Quote:
Quote:
So for everyone? Teens? Students? Young people just starting life?


Why not? Why shouldn't these people make more money? I really want to know a real reason for this.


You don't? Isn't the entire living wage argument based on the idea that we should pay people based on what they need and not merely based on the value of their labor to their employer? Do dependent teens "need" to earn that much? no? Then your own argument, by your own reasoning, falls apart. I'm the one arguing that pay should be based on the value of labor. But if you're going to argue it should be based on need, then you need to at least be consistent with that need argument.

Quote:
Did their parents and grandparents come out of high school destroying the economy when they earned enough to support themselves starting out? Why shouldn't this generation and future generations have that same opportunity?


They didn't earn enough "starting out". The teen working as a soda jerk didn't earn enough to support a family back in the 50s. He earned some pocket change. That's it. If he got a job at the local factory, or office building, doing something more significant (ie: valuable), he earned more. Even then, it took time to build up enough earnings to do things like get married and raise a family. The difference is that young adults back then understood this, put their noses to the grindstone, and worked at getting to that point. Today, it seems like kids expect to earn enough money to own a house with a white picket fence right out of the gate, and if they can't, they complain about it.

You can't expect the kid working behind the counter at a fast food joint to earn the same living wage as a guy working a factory floor somewhere. If you want to earn a "living wage", you need to get a job that actually earns that wage. I guess my big issue with this (well, one of them), is the bait and switch. You insist that people need to earn a living wage to be able to support themselves but then you argue that this wage should be the minimum and should be paid even to those who have no need to support themselves. I don't get that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Oct 23 2015 at 11:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
Quote:
They didn't earn enough "starting out". The teen working as a soda jerk didn't earn enough to support a family back in the 50s. He earned some pocket change. That's it. If he got a job at the local factory, or office building, doing something more significant (ie: valuable), he earned more. Even then, it took time to build up enough earnings to do things like get married and raise a family. The difference is that young adults back then understood this, put their noses to the grindstone, and worked at getting to that point. Today, it seems like kids expect to earn enough money to own a house with a white picket fence right out of the gate, and if they can't, they complain about it.

You can't expect the kid working behind the counter at a fast food joint to earn the same living wage as a guy working a factory floor somewhere. If you want to earn a "living wage", you need to get a job that actually earns that wage. I guess my big issue with this (well, one of them), is the bait and switch. You insist that people need to earn a living wage to be able to support themselves but then you argue that this wage should be the minimum and should be paid even to those who have no need to support themselves. I don't get that.

You know what, I am real sick of people saying customer service jobs aren't real jobs. Tell you what, I want you to stop using any service that relies on minimum wage work. Since they aren't real jobs, and the workers don't deserve a real paycheck, stop using their services. But I know you won't, because you realize they do more to keep society running on a day to day basis than any guy sitting in an office posting on the internet. Nobody is going to miss your "real" workers, but they sure as hell are going to miss the minimum wage grunts they look down on.
#123 Oct 24 2015 at 12:18 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
If he got a job at the local factory, or office building, doing something more significant (ie: valuable), he earned more. Even then, it took time to build up enough earnings to do things like get married and raise a family. .
Exactly what wages do you think a carpenter, a factory worker or a meat cutter make in Rapid City, South Dakota?

Don't say anything stupid, just take a guess.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#124 Oct 24 2015 at 5:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
gbaji is speaking in past tense again. If only we could all still live in the Clinton years.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#125 Oct 24 2015 at 5:30 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
If you were going to go on a rampage, Kuwoobie, how would you go about it? Targets and method.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#126 Oct 24 2015 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
If you were going to go on a rampage, Kuwoobie, how would you go about it? Targets and method.


I can't help but feel that any answer I might give would be incredibly disappointing for you.

Edited, Oct 24th 2015 11:36am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 419 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (419)