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 ever going to answer my questions or just deflect with strawman arguments?
Do you think a full-time worker should be paid enough to feed their children? Yes or no?
I think a full-time worker should get the skills necessary to feed their children. If they can't, or won't, they should not have those children.
Just "working" doesn't put food on the table. It's the type of work you do.
And this money that is "paid" to those workers? Where does it come from? It doesn't grow on trees, so it must come from someone else. Who also works hard, but has their money taken from them, by the might of our federal government, by someone that has made a choice.
The government disagrees with you. Hence, the SNAP program.
The government is intent on creating another generation of citizens that are dependent, and therefore keep those that "gave" them the program, in power.
No, I don't think it's acceptable that you let your children go hungry.
If you do that, I think we, the society, should take your children away from you and put them up fro adoptions.
That would be using force to push agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
I think a full-time worker should get the skills necessary to feed their children. If they can't, or won't, they should not have those children.
Just "working" doesn't put food on the table. It's the type of work you do.
And this money that is "paid" to those workers? Where does it come from? It doesn't grow on trees, so it must come from someone else. Who also works hard, but has their money taken from them, by the might of our federal government, by someone that has made a choice.
Why doesn't it?
You believe a full-time worker should have some sort of elitist skillset to feed his family. Everyone who works eats. Period. This isn't a fuedal society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
The government is intent on creating another generation of citizens that are dependent, and therefore keep those that "gave" them the program, in power.
You assume there are frivolous purchases, what if there aren't? Remember you have to have a cell phone plan because you can't get Obamaphone, you would have to get health insurance due to Obamacare and again Medicaid is off the table, section 8 housing again is off the table and so is government cheese and milk. Now again, would you be able to budget this out even if the costs are too much?
I don't disagree that there are those to pull them up by their bootstraps but, If there are only so many jobs, You may not be able to get said second job. In Arizona for instance, there are not enough jobs for one person to have a single job, let two. The point me saying this, is limiting factors may dictate some of what you and others suggest it is.
You don't have to have a cell phone. Where did that ridiculous idea come from? A cell phone is a luxury item, not a necessity. As for insurance, if you're making $10 an hour your insurance is going to be subsidized, thanks to Obamacare. Even without welfare, you'll still be able to force people to help you out.
Groceries? Shop intelligently and they aren't that expensive. As I've stated previously, I manage to feed a family of four 3 healthy meals a day on right around $300 a month, and that includes meats such as pork, chicken, hamburger, roasts, and steak. All it takes is a bit of budgeting, the willpower to avoid impulse purchases, and rudimentary cooking skills. If you don't know how to cook, learn. It isn't rocket science, and you don't need anyone to teach you how to make basic meals.
Your economic arguments are frivolous and already refuted throughout this thread, so why do you keep trying?
Since you're dealing solely in hypotheticals, I'm not going to even address the supposed "limiting factors" in your imaginary job search. You can't even figure out a basic budget that would let one live on $10 an hour, so explaining unemployment and how to find a job in a tough market is a waste of my time.
Meanwhile in Edmonton, Canada - McDonalds advertises $13/hour.
The Alberta minimum wage is $10.20.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not personally opposed to companies paying more than the minimum wage in order to attract good employees. The more they pay, the better quality of employee they will manage to attract. It's a win-win for both sides of the agreement. Better quality employees cost a company a little more in labor, but they also tend to be more concerned with doing their job correctly and treating customers and co-workers properly.
What I am against is forcing employers to pay more by setting an arbitrary number. It's an exercise in futility.
You believe a full-time worker should have some sort of elitist skillset to feed his family. Everyone who works eats. Period. This isn't a fuedal society.
..........
Yes, everyone who works can afford to eat. Thank you for finally admitting that.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not personally opposed to companies paying more than the minimum wage in order to attract good employees. The more they pay, the better quality of employee they will manage to attract. It's a win-win for both sides of the agreement. Better quality employees cost a company a little more in labor, but they also tend to be more concerned with doing their job correctly and treating customers and co-workers properly.
What I am against is forcing employers to pay more by setting an arbitrary number. It's an exercise in futility.
This, this and more this.
I am definitely in favor of paying an employee a wage that both employee and employer find mutually agreeable and beneficial. My employer pays me quite well for what I do, and we are both pleased with the contract.
That said, I definitely agree with JimRom and oppose any party external to the employer-employee forcing what the employer must do. If an employer and employee reach a voluntary agreement, then the terms of that agreement are fine, else one or both parties would refuse.
You believe a full-time worker should have some sort of elitist skillset to feed his family. Everyone who works eats. Period. This isn't a fuedal society.
..........
Pushing an agenda? Oh, you mean save your children whom you can't afford and shouldn't have to begin with. We don't have to use force. You have two choices:
1. Give up your children willingly
2. Let them starve to death, which will result in you committing a crime of torturing your children.
No it is much more complex than rocket science to those who truly believe that using State coercion is a moral way to get anything that they want from their fellow man. Mini-tyrants.
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.
