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.
BTW If you need an example of not paying taxes to maintain roads, please do drive in I-86 in upstate NY. It is an eye opener for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth
Look guys we've known for some time that wages arent keeping up with inflation. Now where would one expect the pinch of this inflation-wage gap first? Thats right, in the lowest wage bracket. Thats why there is such an uproar right now amongst those in this bracket. Guess what...soon it will creep up into YOUR bracket. Wont be funny then will it. Instead of attacking those that are asking for a livable wage, why dont we as fellow slaves to the economy listen to them. Why dont we actually look into the problem to see what is causing their woes, instead of attacking them? Is this what America has turned into? Every worker for himself? Soon inflation will make your kids hungry too, then you will listen.
Merica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by go-getta-J
You can't ever win with these folks.
Don't demand higher wages, and don't you dare take government assistance.....take some personal responsibility and pull yourself up by the bootstraps blah blah blah.......
It's a shame that in the 21st century, with all of America's technological and economic achievements, our country is still being held back by these Puritans who just can't stand the thought of everyone having the right to a life free of worry and deprivation.
Making sure that society continues to hold destitute and desperate people over a barrel is like a national past time to them.
PhotoPro, thatguy and go-getta get it.
Do I like paying taxes? HELL NO. But they're an (unpleasant) necessity in a civilized society, and the fact is that we all benefit from them. Paying taxes is not something we'd choose to do if we didn't have to, but if we don't - or we don't pay enough tax - boy are we going to pay an even HIGHER price in the long run. Taxes are for the common good, and if paying slightly higher taxes means we'll get better roads, more widely available public transit (such as high-speed rail that EVEN CHINA has, for God's sake), safer cites, a better-educated, better-informed population, and access to quality health care for everyone, then I, for one, will gladly pay higher taxes.
I don't like lazy people who don't pull their own weight any more than do most of you. Believe me. But not paying a livable wage to people who work full-time isn't going to make "those people" go away.
Thatguydownsouth is right: people in the lowest income brackets are going to feel the pinch first, and then, as sure as death and taxes, it WILL move up the food chain. And one need only look around to see the MOST COMMON results of our every-man-for-himself, pick-up-your-bootstraps, sucks-to-be-you, ruggedly individualistic canon. The proof is in the pudding, as it always is. On a college road trip with my daughter last week, we drove through another state known for anti-labor, anti-tax policies and almost universally low salaries. NEVER in my 40+ years have I seen such widespread poverty. NEVER. And this is the United States of America.
If you think that the US can embrace low taxes and low wages AND continue to be a prosperous, well-managed country that attracts the best and brightest from around the world, you would be wrong. Overall quality of living will continue to decline.
Mercer, a US-based organization, just released its Quality of Living Worldwide City Rankings for 2014. If you're unfamiliar, it's an annual survey conducted to help the international business community looking to expand its business abroad. I've looked at these for years, and the results remain pretty consistent. Here are the top 5 cities out of 223 (to narrow it down to North American cities, click on the "North America" tab at the top:
Quality of Living City Rankings (There is a short video on the webpage that summarizes the results and identifies the criteria used in the rankings)
Some people on this thread might not care about stuff like this, but the international business community (and an increasingly globalized world) certainly does.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 02-25-2014 at 10:44 AM..
The entire concept of a "livable wage" is inane, as what's livable in one circumstance would not be, in another. For example, what are employers supposed to do (even if it were legal)?...ask about the marital status of job applicants and whether or not others in the household are employed? How about family size. You thinkk that doesn't change what one needs to live on? And that's not even taking into account discretionary spending.
Im a little late to this party but.....there are 3 basic needs of a human being, a shelter is one of them. (Food and Water being the other) These are BASIC NEEDS to exist. You just claimed that people making minimum wage dont even deserve one of the only three things required to exist on this planet. Doesnt that sound a little odd to you?
No. I claimed no such thing. It's ridiculous to have your own apartment if you're making minimum wage. My neighbors below me share a studio. What? You mean people should have to share living space as humans have for thousands of years? Somebody call a waaaaaaambulance!!!!!!!! .
I guess you (conveniently) skipped over the part of my post where I mentioned I rented rooms in houses for 8.5 years. Somehow I survived and lived to tell about it.
Look guys we've known for some time that wages arent keeping up with inflation. Now where would one expect the pinch of this inflation-wage gap first? Thats right, in the lowest wage bracket. Thats why there is such an uproar right now amongst those in this bracket. Guess what...soon it will creep up into YOUR bracket. Wont be funny then will it. Instead of attacking those that are asking for a livable wage, why dont we as fellow slaves to the economy listen to them. Why dont we actually look into the problem to see what is causing their woes, instead of attacking them? Is this what America has turned into? Every worker for himself? Soon inflation will make your kids hungry too, then you will listen.
Merica.
It's already crept up into my bracket due to a 12.5% pay cut several years back and steadily increasing rent & other expenses. That's why I saved my butt off for 8.5 years by living in shared housing arrangements. I bought stocks & bonds so I wouldn't have to be 100% dependent on wage income. I still save a decent amount, although less than before...but now my portfolio is doing some of the work for me.
Unfortunately, people stuck in a wage earner mindset don't do that and you can't convince many of them to, no matter how hard you try. (I know, because I've tried).
In Australia, who pays the wage? Are employees that much more productive in Australia? Or are companies required to pay workers more than the value of what the workers produce? If the latter, how do the companies make any money?
If the USA is a disgrace to humanity, why do a very large number people in the rest of the world want to immigrate here?
It makes much more sense when you stop thinking about "job creators" and "job takers" and realize that what a higher minimum means is that workers keep a greater share of the fruits of their labor.
It makes much more sense when you stop thinking about "job creators" and "job takers" and realize that what a higher minimum means is that workers keep a greater share of the fruits of their labor.
Nope. It means that they will keep a greater share of the fruits of someone else's labor.
Nope. It means that they will keep a greater share of the fruits of someone else's labor.
What it means is that the government will force someone (or something) that provides them with a job to keep a larger share of the value that job creates (Of course, whether schoolteachers who spend much of their time tumpeting Politically Correct nonsense are creating value is highly debatable).
If the bozos on the bottom feel that their "talents" are worth more, they're free to look elsewhere. Write if you find meaningful work, and don't let the door hit you on the backside onthe way out.
What it means is that the government will force someone (or something) that provides them with a job to keep a larger share of the value that job creates (Of course, whether schoolteachers who spend much of their time tumpeting Politically Correct nonsense are creating value is highly debatable).
If the bozos on the bottom feel that their "talents" are worth more, they're free to look elsewhere. Write if you find meaningful work, and don't let the door hit you on the backside onthe way out.
We're getting a little off topic but this is a pet peeve of mine. These types of studies usually suffer from inane design because they're typically conducted by PhD researchers who don't really know anything about food and little about nutrition, and this study is no different. Here's what they classify as healthy vs. unhealthy:
Peanut butter meeting Nutrition Detectives critera vs. not meeting Nutrition Detectives criteria
What the hell is "Nutrition Detectives?" Apparently it's some kiddie site where they place brand names of certain foods into "winner" and "loser" categories. On the winner side for peanut butter they list a bunch of smaller more upscale/expensive niche brands like Trader Joe's and Maple Grove Farms vs. huge mass marketed ones like Jiffy and Peter Pan. Not exactly an even comparison, and why don't they compare a bag of peanuts vs. a jar of Jiffy?
"Chicken with skin" is labeled unhealthy and compared with "chicken without skin." Just because you buy/cook the chicken with the skin on it doesn't mean you have to eat the skin. To say that a whole chicken that you roast in your oven is "unhealthy" compared to a bag of boneless skinless chicken breasts is absurd.
Then they list skinless boneless chicken breasts vs. chicken drumsticks. See above.
Under the snacks category they list "chocolate with low saturated fat" vs. "chocolate with high saturated fat." The saturated fat in chocolate is mainly stearic acid which lowers your risk of stroke.
They list "sugar substitute" vs. "sugar." Newsflash, neither one is healthy.
"Produce" vs. "snacks." Could they pick any more broad categories? Which produce (bananas are 15 cents each)? Which snacks?
"Biscuits and crackers with low vs. high saturated fat." Since when is any biscuit healthy?
If you go down the list virtually all their comparisons are low-fat processed junk food vs. high-fat processed junk food, or low-fat dairy/meat vs. high-at dairy/meat. In Asian countries they often use small amounts of fatty cuts of meat to flavor soups, rice, and other dishes. Many would argue that using small pieces of fatty cuts of meat to flavor dishes, which is also much cheaper, is more healthy than eating big chunks of lean meat, and I would agree.
I find it amusing that researchers so often act as apologists for poor people saying that junk food is cheaper, then out of the other side of their mouth they worry that people in developing economies start eating more and more junk food as they become more prosperous and able to afford it. People are worried about Bolivian quinoa farmers now being able to afford things like Coca Cola because of rich Westerners paying a bunch of money for their quinoa, for example. It makes no sense.
You are misstating the analysis of the study. It is significantly more sophisticated than you imply. The linked study is a meta-analysis of other studies dating back to 2000. In order to learn what "produce" and "snacks" means in the context of this study, you need to refer back to the 2010 study from which that data came. I'll wait . . .
Have you got a better study, or is it just your gut feel that healthy food is cheaper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
Actually, I did not say that at all. I said that the government taking money out of my check and giving me (less inflation-adjusted) money (if any) in the future is not a benefit.
That is one enormous assumption/leap to conclusion. Someone can disapprove of a particular government program, or even just think that it's not a benefit, without being an anarchist who disapproves of all government and taxation.
I have no desire to eliminate income tax and the program we were talking about, social security, is not funded with income tax, so I have no idea where you got that.
Your local minimum wage has the same purchasing power as $4.77 an hour in Texas. How do you feel about that?
Like public transit, I'm all for densification...for other people. Your NIMBY constituents aren't, however, which is why San Francisco has 1/4 the population density as Manhattan. And Manhattan still has a higher cost of living. Maybe they can keep building higher and higher in Manhattan and the poor can get tiny apartments on the 574th floor for only $2,500 a month.
Middle class neighborhoods do exist in San Francisco and Manhattan, the entry fee is about $150,000 a year.
So I assume that you agree that government taxes and provides benefits--that it does not confiscate. You must realize that our system of government involves myriad cross-subsidies, so you won't get back the same money that you pay in taxes. Why should it matter to anyone whether you, personally, receive benefits. The point is that we all pay taxes and we all get some benefits.
On an aggregate basis, under current Social security policy, the government is paying out more than it has received after adjusting for inflation. Some of us will get less than we paid, others will get more. I don't think that means the program should be terminated as you apparently do. It is simply a cross-subsidy.
$4.77 an hour in Amarillo, Dallas, Hill Country, Texarkana? Makes a big difference, I would think.
These days the cost of housing is higher at the median in SF than NYC, but Manhattan is indeed higher than SF. Opposition to construction is a problem in SF, as it is in NYC. I think that we need more construction, although it is difficult to get construction approved here. You are just wrong about the entry point for middle class neighborhoods in SF, though. There are many apartments for rent in SF under $2000. Take a look at Craigslist. And that is to say nothing of shared housing and rent control. And I'm sure you are aware that salaries and wages are higher here than most places. Again, these local issues really are not the subject of this thread, and I'm not sure exactly how you believe they connect. Feel free to establish a connection, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
Its not as cost effective as you might think.... Technology has a lot of maintenance cost not just the initial cost to build the infrastructure.
Besides. Its already there.... Most libraries provide internet access.
Also... a lot of establishments with free wifi.
I work in technology. I don't subscribe to the notion that internet access is a necessity.
Most things are not necessities. Electricity is not a necessity. But it is a utility and it does have tremendous maintenance costs (not to mention long-term capital investment costs). Internet access may also be a utility. There are arguments both for and against.
A lot of establishments offer free electricity, too, but that does not mean that people's homes should not have electricity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Nope. It means that they will keep a greater share of the fruits of someone else's labor.
So you're telling me that employers will hire people at a high minimum wage even if that employee won't create more value than they are paid? I've got to say, that seems far-fetched. Maybe such an employer needs new management.
dont get me started on this.
not my problem you are making this amount.
you should of went to school
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.
. 
