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.
Are you kidding me. You don't get a yearly raise. I have never know any company who doesn't do that. I think they have used and abused you And huge companies like Mcdonalds, Walmart, etc would absolutely be able to absorb those costs. But that means less pay for the CEO who makes millions.
I think you didn't read my post very closely. The reason I haven't received a "yearly" raise in the last 10 years is that I have changed employers or positions frequently in that time period. Leaving a $35K position for a $40K position isn't a raise, it's a job change, even if it's with the same company.
Yes, I have spent my entire life without having sex. End result: No kids, no STDs.
I guess that is the up side to that. I too have managed to have no kids or STDs, but have also got to enjoy being an adult and enjoy sex....but to each there own I guess....
They are having them at older ages, but late 20s doesn't mean people are financially stable or where they are going to be in their careers yet. For many, that puts having a baby right after finishing college where we have the most amount of debt plaguing this generation.
"Thursday's statistics show that the rate of women under age 20 when they have their first child decreased by 42 percent from 2000 to 2014... From 2000 to 2014, the proportion of first births to women aged 30 to 34 increased 28 percent, and those among women over age 35 went up 23 percent. "
Those are some pretty significant changes in just 15 years, and having the average age near 28 means that the majority of women have started careers when they have their first child.
(Note: These stats are also skewed because it only includes women who have had children and excludes women who have not had children yet.)
"Thursday's statistics show that the rate of women under age 20 when they have their first child decreased by 42 percent from 2000 to 2014... From 2000 to 2014, the proportion of first births to women aged 30 to 34 increased 28 percent, and those among women over age 35 went up 23 percent. "
Those are some pretty significant changes in just 15 years, and having the average age near 28 means that the majority of women have started careers when they have their first child.
(Note: These stats are also skewed because it only includes women who have had children and excludes women who have not had children yet.)
I am not saying women aren't having their first children more in their 30s, I am saying the majority of 1st children born are still happening in women's 20s. Also, with women having their first child later in life also has to do with the fact that more people in their 20s are being saddled with more debt than they can handle, which makes the idea of even having more daunting.
I have a couple friends, married, they both make near that (A LOT of people make a tiny bit over it). They just got told their rent was going up by another couple hundred a month.
They've gone through a series of room mates, who flaked and they kicked them out until they finally got 2 who were a couple, one is working I think, the other in college. combined they could make the rent. Now......not so much.
So they're going to move...again. Probably to somewhere with high crime. They want kids...but they recognize they can't afford them. If they have a serious accident, or financial problem they will borrow money from me or someone else, and recover....given time.
But their life is full of work, and fear. It sucks.
What about seniors trying to make it on $1000 a month?
If the $15/hr goes national the price increases to cover this higher wage will slam seniors.
Where are the people complaining about the artificially low interest rates harming seniors? Why is it wrong for the lowest class to "harm" the seniors but it's cool for Wall Street to do the same?
Why does no one ever address this aspect of the problem?
Where are the people complaining about the artificially low interest rates harming seniors? Why is it wrong for the lowest class to "harm" the seniors but it's cool for Wall Street to do the same?
Why does no one ever address this aspect of the problem?
I get that it would harm personal investments by seniors, but what's the effect on social security? Presumably their investment mix, while more conservative than most people, would still be relatively aggressive because of low interest rates to offset the poor yield in bonds and cash accounts.
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.
And huge companies like Mcdonalds, Walmart, etc would absolutely be able to absorb those costs. But that means less pay for the CEO who makes millions.
