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.
Minimum wage, is it not just slavery, but with a different name?
I know that in many states of the US you have a minimum wage, we too in the UK have, but can you actually live on it, without going into debt or robbing a bank? ( by this I mean borrowing and not paying back ), but if you like, you can take it literally.
Now when you take tax off, take off parking fees, fuel, depreciation and maintenance of your vehicle, ( that you need to get to and from work ), new clothes for work, etc, etc, not much is left.
I worked this out just recently, that on a minimum wage job, doing 40 hours per week, the sum of money left after expenses was about £45.
So you may say, then take another job. Well there are not enough jobs to go around in the first place, so that is unlikely.
Now extra expenses, food, rent, ( no chance of a mortgage ), clothes for the children, medical and dental expenses, the list goes on and on.
Should employers that pretend to value their employees not have to show some kind of appreciation by paying a living wage?
Another thing we can thank the Government for, is importing foreign labour to force down the wages that could be demanded by the limited work force. Nothing like putting your security under jeopardy, to encourage you to work harder, is there?
So, Is this not just another kind of state engineered slavery?
Is Slavery Really Dead? I Don't Think So, How About You?
I know that in many states of the US you have a minimum wage,
The U.S. Federal Minimum Wage is applicable in all States. I don't know if it applies to Puerto Rico, Guam, Baghdad, etc.
Another thing we can thank the Government for, is importing foreign labour
Many U.S. businesses are way ahead of other countries in this respect. Rather than import employees--export the McJobs.
Minimum wage is perfectly fine when you're a 16 year old kid - and it's fine when you're living at home, have few bills, have no children. Of course you find a trade or career that will pay you more so you don't stay at the same level you were in at age 16 or 17.
Minimum wage is not the same nationwide. Some States have higher rates. It does not necessarily mean that State has a higher cost of living, though that would be an interesting study. Not all workers are covered by minimum wage. Salesmen, cab drivers and the self-employed among them.
90% of the time they are in public housing (or became poor) because of horrible life decisions. (doing drugs, getting pregnant too young, dropping out of high school, etc)
Not exactly, but lots of people like to think so, because it lets them sleep easier at night while others go to bed hungry. It's too much for most people to accept that whether we end up on public housing or with our own comfortable roof over our head, depends largely on bigger issues than our own individual influence. What individualism does play into the outcome is mostly our parents individual influence and the decisions they make, than our own influence.
Not exactly, but lots of people like to think so, because it lets them sleep easier at night while others go to bed hungry. It's too much for most people to accept that whether we end up on public housing or with our own comfortable roof over our head, depends largely on bigger issues than our own individual influence. What individualism does play into the outcome is mostly our parents individual influence and the decisions they make, than our own influence.
I actually kind of agree with this. But I believe that random chance has more to do with it than we think. We really enjoy ascribing internal influences to other peoples' misery, but when it's ours, it's external.
I do think that there are a good portion of those on government assistance who don't care to get off of assistance because that's all they know, and they are typically surrounded by others on the same assistance who are more than glad to reinforce their idea that it's OK to have the government pay for their luxuries and their necessaries.
I think that a good parallel (on this forum) is rural vs. suburban vs. urban living.
I wouldn't ever want to live in a city, because that is unknown, and that the norm for me is a rural setting. I would be to afraid to live in about any city. Too much crime, too much diversity, etc. I'm sure that there are a good number would be too afraid to live out where I lived for a while. My area was actually known to be an area where Blacks would get beaten a while back. That isn't the case anymore, but the fear is there - just as the fear might be there for one to get off welfare.
I think that the biggest issue is that the government says that it's perfectly fine to go on welfare. As a matter of fact, my current state, New York, prints out a brochure in 28 languages explaining how to go on welfare, who it's for, and that it's OK to use it. Is this a good use of taxpayer money? No. Does it help those who need to learn a skill so they can support themselves? Not a bit.
in a way yes. but its not so much the low wages that causes it, its more the huge student loan debt and high cost of housing. also you mentioned our government has shot us in the foot with unrestricted illegal immigration.
i can blame the government and corporations for 1/2 the problem. the other 1/2 i blame on the american worker for not supporting unions who would have put a stop to the army of illegals (20 million) snapping up the the jobs.
for the last 20 years american have been offered easier credit instead of increased wages. debtor nation.
Yes, the unions are trying to stop illegal immigration... Uhh, right.
So is that why they bused hundreds of people into Arizona to protest Arizona's right to uphold federal law? The unions don't care about the worker. For the unions it's about money - Money to be spent institute progressive politics in America. I agree that in the days of Bethlehem Steel that unions were much needed to protect the worker - Not anymore. We have strong laws to do this. The unions are selling a product that no one needs, why do you think that in about 1/2 of states if your company is unionized that you will be FORCED to join the union? If people wanted to join the union, and the union was actually for the worker, the unions would not want these laws and lobby against them... But since the unions know what is true, and if they can no longer force unionization that no one will buy their snake oil, that their product will go the way of the wagon wheel.
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.
