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.
Just what Warren Buffett needs to do. Move to Podunk MS and live off his SS check alone.
Not warren buffett but every day people. Wages for the same jobs are generally higher in higher cost of living areas. That makes for a better work record.
When i had the house in pa our competitor paid less than half for what i do. We could make do with about 1/3 less income so half was off the table.. we were better off in queens. Ss wise i did far better here than the locals doing my job in pa. We have a branch in ohio where i worked , the same thing applies.
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-03-2018 at 11:26 AM..
Just because we want or think people should care doesn't mean they should or will. I would have thought that most of us being at or near retirement age would have long since realized that. There are already plenty of states that being poor in really sucks and shortens your life expectancy. Do people who don't work retire?
What is retirement? Define that and then begin to discuss who is entitled to it and what it takes for them to afford and if they can't how and should society provide it.
We need to understand there are millions of Americans willing to let other Americans die in order to preserve what they have and have worked to acquire especially when they consider others undeserving or different from them.
Interesting, that's what I said a few pages back, and got lambasted for it.
Of course I phrased it a bit different.
Just because we want or think people should care doesn't mean they should or will. .......
I think the issue is a lot more complicated. We believe in personal freedom and letting each individual decide how they want to live their lives. Some people make choices I would consider poor at best. Those choices often preclude sacrifice and deferral of present gratification at the expense of the future. When people make poor choices it is not my "care". Most of us agree that a basic safety net makes sense even for those who were foolish their entire lives. Beyond that it seems caring how people live is a bit too late.
In most modern industrialized nations, it has been a right for some time.
In the US there is no "right" to a paid retirement. In the other modern, industrialized nations I am familiar with, there is some type of lifetime work requirement to qualify for a government pension, just like the US. We call our government pension "social security." SS is a fairly progressive scheme, and it does require a certain amount of working years to qualify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach
I am confused about your first statement, though. Someone doing dishes in a restaurant, vacuuming an office building at night or a host of other low paying jobs is not "doing what others can do for themselves" - I mean maybe I have the skills to vacuum my own office, clean my own dishes at restaurants or mop the public bathrooms I use, but those are things that it is practical for everyone to do themselves so they have become jobs that we want someone to fill.
Jobs that can be done by anyone usually pay little, because a capitalist economy like that of the US allows the market to set pay rates based on supply and demand. The federal and state governments do have some progressive rules around minimum wage, working conditions, working hours and breaks, parental leave, etc. The US is fairly typical this way of a modern, industrial nation that adheres to capitalist principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach
We should treat that person with enough respect to pay them well enough to live decently and when they have worked for a long time and have trouble doing it anymore, they should be able to retire and not just be housed and fed at the lowest possible cost.
The US federal government (I assume that is the "We" in your comment) does not "house and feed" people in retirement, nor would the vast voting majority want it that way. And as I stated above, there is no "right" to retire -- all workers should make their own financial plans.
Last edited by westender; 04-03-2018 at 12:03 PM..
In the US there is no "right" to a paid retirement. In the other modern, industrialized nations I am familiar with, there is some type of lifetime work requirement to qualify for a government pension, just like the US. We call our government pension "social security." SS is a fairly progressive scheme, and it does require a certain amount of working years to qualify.
Jobs that can be done by anyone usually pay little, because a capitalist economy like that of the US allows the market to set pay rates based on supply and demand. The federal and state governments do have some progressive rules around minimum wage, working conditions, working hours and breaks, parental leave, etc. The US is fairly typical this way of a modern, industrial nation that adheres to capitalist principles.
The US federal government (I assume that is the "We" in your comment) does not "house and feed" people in retirement, nor would the vast voting majority want it that way. And as I stated above, there is no "right" to retire -- all workers should make their own financial plans.
Look up the work requirements for OAS and GIS in Canada...
I am not saying people should not work; they will do better if they do.
The rules around minimum wage right now are hardly progressive. That's a big part of the problem. A lot of people find it acceptable to pay people who perform some jobs less money than it takes to live without assistance. I don't find that acceptable. Yes, there are programs to provide that assistance which by extension benefit the employer's bottom line. We subsidize employers who underpay employees.
The US government may not directly house and feed people, but though welfare, HUD and SNAP, they end up doing it. A patchwork of programs makes it easier for some people to fall through the cracks.
... The rules around minimum wage right now are hardly progressive. That's a big part of the problem. A lot of people find it acceptable to pay people who perform some jobs less money than it takes to live without assistance. I don't find that acceptable.
People want to live in high COL cities, that is life. While in those high COL cities they find that a Minimum-Wage income is not enough to support a family.
Yet the same wage in a low COL region is plenty.
Some employers do pay more in high COL cities. I am not sure that I want to blame employers though.
High COL cities are very enticing, they have traffic, crime, street lights and cable in every apartment.
Who wants to live in any low COL region where there is no cable or cell towers?
It is a personal choice to decide where to live.
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.
Just what Warren Buffett needs to do. Move to Podunk MS and live off his SS check alone.
