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.
lol you're hilarious. I love to get scolded by random people on a forum who in all likelihood are glued to their PC in the basement asking mom to bring them another Pepsi
Right, that proves your point! When you have no rebuttal, you resort to personal attack.
Where you prepared skill-wise to be able to support two children? Had he been a wonderful guy who got hit by a bus you could have been in the same situation. That you made a bad relationship decision (we all do it) doesn't excuse not thinking otherwise. So you pick yourself up and keep going. Back on topic, giving non-skilled workers more for adding no additional value to the business is wrong. MW is an introductory wage not meant to support a family.
Honestly, this should only be answered by lets say 26 year olds and younger.....can anyone figure out why? If it maybe you need to re-evaluate your life....
This ongoing demand for higher wages begs the question of who is expected to pay for it? And since MW workers will still be at the bottom of the economic totem pole, of what benefit will it be as prices rise to compensate? The path to an honest upgrade in one's payscale is already open to anyone willing to pursue it. Government playing Sugar Daddy is just a ploy for votes, nothing more.
This ongoing demand for higher wages begs the question of who is expected to pay for it? And since MW workers will still be at the bottom of the economic totem pole, of what benefit will it be as prices rise to compensate? The path to an honest upgrade in one's payscale is already open to anyone willing to pursue it. Government playing Sugar Daddy is just a ploy for votes, nothing more.
Democrats playing Sugar Daddy is just a ploy for votes, nothing more.
Not the government.
Also the corporations should be paying for it after they jack up the price, outsource the jobs and fire all the workers they can't afford.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 04-12-2016 at 04:09 PM..
The cost of living is so low in Oklahoma living on min. wage should be possible, provided one is willing to share a one bedroom trailer house with someone else. Doing that in Arkansas would be easier, though, since the min. wage there is $8 hr. to go up to $8.50 in Jan.
Sharing a one-bedroom trailer is for lovers...and for losers.
I used to live on less than 9K/year and still paid my freaking tuition myself.
Sharing rooms, don't eat out, don't drink, smoke, go out, etc.
I used to be poor and each month, I still managed to save $20.
Ah, there's the rub! The mainstream homeowner majority demands minimum wage workers be housed to middle class code standards, whether or not said minimum wage workers can afford to do so.
WTF would that accomplish? I have never seen a landlord who would tolerate four people to a room in any of his or her rentals. Landlords are funny about stuff like that and for some reason are extremely hard to argue with.
$750/month Income
Rent: $250-$300
Food: $150-200
Electricity: $20-40
Transportation: $20 bicycle bought from yard sale.
Kids: none from recreational shank as I got no time or money to date anybody.
No cell phone, internet, or cable TV.
I have not seen $300 rent in about 20 years.
No internet, eh? A large part of my income depends on internet.
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.
