Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was watching a documentary on CNN about income inequality and the general conscious of the piece was that if someone worked full time and worked hard that society through the government and employers owed them a middle class lifestyle. Do you agree?
The question doesn't really get to the heart of the issue, IMHO.
Anyone who works a real job full-time - and does a good job, of course - deserves to be paid enough to sustain themselves (basic little apartment, old car, etc.), but that's about it. Why? Because if we pay them less than that - so little that they can't live on it - then the taxpayer is stuck picking up the difference via social safety nets. This rapidly turns into corporate welfare, where very profitable businesses grossly underpay their employees with the taxpayer picking up the difference without any choice in the matter. That's not right - it removes choice from the taxpayer and accountability from the corporation - and is a slap in the face to what this nation was supposedly founded on.
On the other hand, we have to be realistic about the work people put into life and what they expect to get out of it. There are no shortage of rage-blinded boot-strappers out there who love to spit in the face of the hard-working and well-educated and say, "nobody owes you anything!" These same people, of course, will throw a tantrum if *they* don't get what they "deserve," but they have no problem cutting other people's dreams short, regardless of the consequences. It is hypocritical and dishonest, but it seems to be par for the course. It also has a long-term negative effect on our society since if we're going to honestly believe that "nobody owes anyone anything" and expecting years of education and solid work experience to pay off is "being entitled," then why should anyone put in any extra effort or help out their fellow man? Is that really the type of society in which we want to live?
Anyone who works a real job full-time - and does a good job, of course - deserves to be paid enough to sustain themselves (basic little apartment, old car, etc.), but that's about it. Why? Because if we pay them less than that - so little that they can't live on it - then the taxpayer is stuck picking up the difference via social safety nets.
Agreed minus car. A car is not a necessity. If one lives in a rural area, they should get relocation assistance to an area serviced by public transportation.
Rent and food prices do not discriminate based on income. If I'm poor, I need a subsidized facility or food stamps just to feed myself.. because my greedy employer won't pay me a livable wage. I suppose its just my fault I'm hungry? I go to work every day.... Perhaps if I work hard I can afford more meals for myself
I didn't ask for your anecdote. Your situation is not indicative of the majority of minimum wage workers in America.
You do realize that businesses exist to provide goods and services to the public, and also to profit off of it? Or did you think a business just exists as a charity, and is obligated to provide jobs? Just because you believe that you are "entitled" to make more, doesn't mean they are obligated to pay you more. The entitlement mentality of "lemme git dat" is also greedy as well, because you're envious of what others have that you don't and are demanding that they subsidize your lifestyle.
Minimum wage is a minimum livable wage. One should not work full time for minimum wage and need taxpayer assistance to live and eat; especially if they have a child.
The unions Republicans have set out to destroy?
So I should go hungry because the only job I can find is minimum wage? I have to "work harder" to have adequate nutrition...?
All I'm hearing from you are excuses along with a strong sense of entitlement. I have worked minimum wage jobs and when it was not enough, I got a second part time job to make sure ends were met. I shared rooms with friends. I eventually went to college because I did not want to live like that for the rest of my life.
How can you bash the Unions for paying a livable wage? Why do you think that Unions =Republican?
You do realize that businesses exist to provide goods and services to the public, and also to profit off of it? Or did you think a business just exists as a charity, and is obligated to provide jobs? Just because you believe that you are "entitled" to make more, doesn't mean they are obligated to pay you more. The entitlement mentality of "lemme git dat" is also greedy as well, because you're envious of what others have that you don't and are demanding that they subsidize your lifestyle.
You do realize that businesses exist to provide goods and services to the public, and also to profit off of it? Or did you think a business just exists as a charity, and is obligated to provide jobs? Just because you believe that you are "entitled" to make more, doesn't mean they are obligated to pay you more. The entitlement mentality of "lemme git dat" is also greedy as well, because you're envious of what others have that you don't and are demanding that they subsidize your lifestyle.
Strawman.
Jeez louise knock off the strawman arguments. This is not about being "entitled" to live comfortably. The point is, folks who work full time should not struggle with bare necessities. Working more than forty hours per week is not an adequate argument, as 40 hour regulations with overtime were created to prevent this very situation.
It is also laughable that you talk about businesses subsidizing lifestyles, but won't talk about how you and I subsidize the profit margins of businesses that refuse to pay their employees a livable wage. If a business has employees on food stamps, you are subsidizing the business and the employee. Cool?
Not in expensive areas. That is why housing is subsidized.
Look, you obviously don't get it. If a person who works needs assistance for basic necessities, the wage is too damn low.
I live in an expensive area. I just ran the numbers and looked up rooms for rent. A person who shares a room with a roommate can make it on minimum wage. A person who gets their own room will probably need a little help in the form of food stamps depending on their other costs, or they can get a part time job to supplement. It won't be a life of luxury but people can make it if they are willing to share rooms and live simply. Most people will not stay in a minimum wage job for the long term.
In many parts of the country public transportation in not existent and car necessary to get to work, just like a cellphone necessary to find a job.
Cell phone I can agree, but like I said.. that is why I support relocation assistance. Cars are not a necessity. One can walk and / or take public transportation to work. The government doesn't owe anyone a vehicle.
Agreed minus car. A car is not a necessity. If one lives in a rural area, they should get relocation assistance to an area serviced by public transportation.
I can't agree with that since we don't live in a nation with decent public transportation... though, I'll give you that a car might not be needed if somebody lives in the city. But once they are in the suburbs or a rural area, forget it - a car is required in this nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
