Hillary for President??

[Sugarman (hal)]

So are we saying we must have slave labor wages to keep the country moving forward? Tell that to the guy who has a wife two kids and who wage 5.15 an hr. fed minimum wage.

[Jefepato]

So are we saying we must have slave labor wages to keep the country moving forward? Tell that to the guy who has a wife two kids and who wage 5.15 an hr. fed minimum wage.

Actually, I'd tell him not to get married and definitely not to have kids until he could line up a better-paying job.  Even if minimum wage was increased drastically, it wouldn't be enough to support a family on.  It isn't supposed to be.

[Sugarman (hal)]

ok tell that to our farm labor people, who puts food on our tables. So every one need 40,000 to 50,000 a year to raise a family. How about a law to turn on the sex drive at 10.00 an hour. That should do it.  ;D

[Jefepato]

No one ever said the world was fair.  But bringing kids into the world that you can't support is even less fair.

[Elvi]

Yeah, what I say is sterilise everyone who isn't earning enough money, why, you'd think these people had a right to reproduce or something.

Only the rich should have the right to have children and of course if their children just happen not to be inteligent enough to make their own way in the world, they can be sterilised and made to do the manual jobs that will free the 'intelligent' to live far better lives.

[Sugarman (hal)]

No one ever said the world was fair.  But bringing kids into the world that you can't support is even less fair.

Question? Are there enough good jobs (ample to raise a family on) around.

I see more and more a two class society emerging. Those who can and those who can't, and the sad thing is education is quickly getting out of the reach of the can't to bridge over to the can side.

[Jefepato]

Yeah, what I say is sterilise everyone who isn't earning enough money, why, you'd think these people had a right to reproduce or something.

Only the rich should have the right to have children and of course if their children just happen not to be inteligent enough to make their own way in the world, they can be sterilised and made to do the manual jobs that will free the 'intelligent' to live far better lives.

That's just silly.

I agree that people need more opportunities.  Everyone should have a fair chance.

But just because the world is unfair doesn't make it right to have kids you can't afford.  Being realistic about that fact is not the same as wanting to keep the poor down.

Question? Are there enough good jobs (ample to raise a family on) around.

I have no idea.  The job market seems to be doing pretty well overall, but I'm not sure what that means in overall number of jobs available (or how it compares to the number of people who want to have children, at various levels of education and experience).

[National Acrobat]

So are we saying we must have slave labor wages to keep the country moving forward? Tell that to the guy who has a wife two kids and who wage 5.15 an hr. fed minimum wage.

The market pays what it can bear. Whether you like it or not, employers have the right to not hire additional help or to lay people off when the government dictates what they should pay people. It happens everytime the minimum wage is raised. My boss is in business to make money.

It's only natural that when the government raises the wage, one of two things happen. People lose jobs and employers cut back on hiring, and the price you pay for goods and services go up.

The truth is raising the wage tends to hurt small and medium businesses, and they are the forces that drive our economy. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level, not family sustainable.

[Elvi]

About as silly as saying that those with lower paid jobs should not have children.
No matter what wage you are on, you can never afford a child.

If there was more money in the pot, more money would be spent on the child and parents would still say it wasn't enough, we all want the best for our children.

But in the end, it's not money that makes a good parent, many years into my adulthood, it dawned on me that I WAS the underpriveleged child that everyone talks about.

There was very little money to go around in our family, my mother made most of our clothes, we had one pair of shoes each and wore them until they dropped off our feet.
My father worked a seven day week doing heavy labour adn spent his recreational time working in a garden allotment growing food and raising chickens for us to eat.

So......by your reconning, I and my two brothers and sister should never have been born, yet we were along with many others. Some went on to greater things and 'bettered' themselves, others of my generation stayed put and became the next workforce.

So.......before you decide that the poorer paid amongst your society should not have children, think again, because without them, as Hal says, you wouldn't have food, clothes or fuel.
A  man, (read human), has the right to a decent wage for the work they do and if that means that you have to pay a little more for your services or your goods then bloody well pay it.

[Sugarman (hal)]

A whole lot of so called religious people well be truly surprised when God tells them that their SUV, vacation twice a year lives cost them a place on the train to God help thy neighbor heaven.

[Jefepato]

There was very little money to go around in our family, my mother made most of our clothes, we had one pair of shoes each and wore them until they dropped off our feet.
My father worked a seven day week doing heavy labour adn spent his recreational time working in a garden allotment growing food and raising chickens for us to eat.

So......by your reconning, I and my two brothers and sister should never have been born, yet we were along with many others. Some went on to greater things and 'bettered' themselves, others of my generation stayed put and became the next workforce.

Apparently your parents could support you, so no, by my reckoning they were just fine to have kids.

But someone working at minimum wage probably isn't going to be able to support a family no matter how hard they work on the side.  (The good news is, it really isn't that hard to get a job that pays more than minimum wage.)

[National Acrobat]

A  man, (read human), has the right to a decent wage for the work they do and if that means that you have to pay a little more for your services or your goods then bloody well pay it.

I agree but a person who decides to go into business for himself also has the right to see his hard work bear fruit, and thusly has the right to let go of people or to decide to freeze hiring when the government tells him how to pay people.

It's not a perfect situation by any means but here in the states the wage increases always hurt businesses and consumers, and in the long run people who want t get work.

I worked for a fortune 500 Compnay from 1987-2004, and 14 of those years I was in management.

We had minimum wage increases while I was there in 1990, 1991, 1996 and 1997. Each time I was forced to suspend hiring and remove employees so that we wouldn't raise our prices and costs. In 1990 I had 148 people working for me. By 2004 when I left, I had 43. Why? One of the reasons was Because of the minimum wage increases. The other reason was rising health costs. However, 43 people still had to do the work of 148, but at least our prices didn't go up.

That's a simple example but the economic impact is a lot more complex.

[Sugarman (hal)]

So there is no hope for the poor is there. Can't get educated = costs to much Can't get a good job= business won't support it.

Can build more prisons ;D there we go.

[Elvi]

Or possibly it would have been simpler to say, 'fare enough, I am not paying my people enough to live on so I'll cut my profits and pay them more'?

I am not saying that all business is 'for the profit', Strangely has his own business and it is more than just the money for him, but most businesses are only there to 'make money' and don't give a damn about their work force.

[National Acrobat]

Not necessarily.

Sometimes you have to look at the general welfare of your current employees. What good does it do to incur so many costs that you have to close down? Making a profit is only good if you can manage your resources. I currentky work for a small company that doesn't make a tremendous profit.

My employer will be faced with one of two options when the minimum wage increase hits. Either cut back spending on employee benefits in order to afford new hires or not hire seasonal  and additional help so that we keep our benefits. Neither one is great, but it beats closing and everyone losing their jobs.

Most American businesses are small, and these are important considerations for them.

[Elvi]

Then they should have also taken into concideration the fact that to be able to live, those that work for them have to be paid a reasonable amount of money?

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Actually instead of bitching about raising the minimum wage of the lower end pay workers.  So they can get a fair pay for their work. And then actually contribute to the cycle of business.  Plus actually afford their own health plans. 

Why don't we cut those that at the higher end who are over paid.  No longer having companies put in matching 401 plans or health plans that match dollar for dollar.  After all they already make the big money. 

Unions have caused a culture of over paid.  Here is the example of such.  My father is and has been a Air Traffic controller.  Yet he no longer does that, why cause he works about 5-6 hours a  day delivering beer.  A five day week job full time with about 30 hours max a week work.  He takes in over a $100.000 a year.   Making more then he did as Air Traffic controller. 

[National Acrobat]

That's what the minimum wage law is for.

Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry jobs, not career jobs. I learned that myself growing up poor. I worked my way through college so that I wouldn't work one of those.

Also, it takes effort on the part of citizens as well to work towards better paying jobs. It's not just an employer's or the government's job to ensure that you earn whatever you think you should.

A lot of Americans feel entitled to make 50,000$ a year and have more than they can afford. A lot of American's feel as if they are owed this by someone and don't understand that you have to actually work for it.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Lets see $8.00x40hrs a week x52weeks= 16,640 a year... nothing close to 50,000 hummmmm

[National Acrobat]

Lets see $8.00x40hrs a week x52weeks= 16,640 a year... nothing close to 50,000 hummmmm

What's the point here? I said a lot of Americans feel entiltled to make that much, I didn't say they did or could.

We've become a culture where every feels that they should get what they want simply because they see others with it. No one wants to work for it.  As a person who had to interview and hire people for 8-10$ an hour jobs as part of my former job, I saw it all the time.

People who thought that making 10$ a year would get them to 50,000$ a year after their first raise or some such nonsense.

[Elvi]

No one wants to work for it.

Bit of a sweeping comment that Acrobat, I assume therefor that includes yourself?

I have always found that the lowest paid workers are the ones who work the hardest and ingrain the greatest work ethic into their children.
"Work hard, study hard, get out of this, don't do what I am having to do"

[National Acrobat]

Ha, it is sweeping, isn't it? Me, I don't want to work that hard for 50,000$ a year. I make a decent salary and am happy with my job, that's all I care about.

As a person who used to hire people for a living, I do have some experience with the service industry. The food service industry to be exact.

[Elvi]

Well, where there are few who expect it on a plate, I believe that you are too sweeping with your generalisations.

I too have had the 'pleasure' of doing hiring and firing. I have found that most want to come in, do their job well, with the minimum amount of hassle and have enough money at the end of it to live an adequate life style.
Of course I cannot really speak for the American labour market, but here I was thinking that it was the British who wanted something for nothing? 

[National Acrobat]

No, a lot of Americans expect something for nothing. A lot of people here feel that they 'deserve' a great, well-paying job simply because they graduated from college. I graduated with my first degree years ago with a lot of folks like that.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The minimum wage in the United States was calculated during a time when food was the main factor of the household.  Calculations for a family of four included researchers purchasing food for three full grown adults, saying that two children would eat the equal of a third adult.  The current market places emphasis on housing with most Americans spending at least half their income on securing the housing, not to mention paynig for the basic necessities of life like clothing, food, water, and electricity.  This does not of course broach the subject of basic medical care or higher education.  Real dollar amount actually places the highest minmum wage in 1968, the real dollar amount adjusted for the value of the dollar in 2005 places the minimum wage then at 9.25 an hour.  There has been a steady decline since then and the present day places the real dollar amount, of course, at 5.15.  This means that the adjustment for the value of the dollar and the consumer market has forced the minimum wage down, rather than up.  Also note that several states have felt the need to raise their own minimum wage in order to provide for their citizens. 

I do not believe that people in the United States are lazy, in fact people in the United States work some of the longest hours in the world with the fewest holidays.  Americans take few vacations and many work more than one job relative to other first world nations.  These do not seem like the trends of a lazy nation, so I believe the remarks of people feeling entitled to make money are unfounded.  As a nation we are very ambitious and hard-working, but the payoff seems to have declined due to the market place.  Such an event cannot be attributed or blamed on the citizens who are raised in the country, but rests on the head of the government for not regulating and attempting to keep up with the economy.  Americans seem to have this belief that the invisible hand of capitalism will linger above all things and set everyone on course, but this is not so and amazingly enough corporations are the first to see this fact.  Why do you think they demand tarriffs, tax breaks, and other government incentives for their dealings.  Corporations receive a massive amount of government welfare, though people rarely see it as such.

Also, what is wrong with a person expecting to make enough money from a single job to live on and provide for their family?  I am not making reference to the highschool student with the summer job, but the forty year old cashier that is trying to support their child.  Is she supposed to make choices of food and electricity simply because she did not go to college, did not make the grades in highschool, or just couldn't get the good job.  There are only so many "good jobs" and the market is highly competitive for those jobs.  Many people do not expect to get good jobs with only a colelge degree now, but go on to graduate schools and trade schools in addition to their degrees.  Graduate schools only have so many slots open to accept people and even that level of education does not guarentee a good job.  Many a horror story of the man with a philsophy doctrate working at the used car lot circles the halls of academia.  So now we have a forty year old mother of one who lives in poverty with no health insurance or ability to save to put her daughter through highschool.  This is all due to what, our economy switching from an industrial one to a servide industry where the wages are lower?  Or inability to attend classes due to working forty hours a week and raising her child?  Or is it due to her just being stupid and lazy cause that is what is so comfortable to believe?

While on the subject of a service economy, where are these wonderful advanced positions that people make reference to.  With hard work and dedication a person can rise up, but they are just too lazy and don't want to work for it.  I see plenty of people working hard at McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and various other stores but what are the chances they will one day rise to the top fo the food chain through hard work.  How many hours can we as a society reasonably expect a person to devote in order to have a chance at being successful?  Do we need them to work two jobs, go to school, and take up overtime?  What is the point where people begin to question whether draining the last hour of the day at work is a bad thing and that perhaps this is the reason for certain other, important social insituations are failing.  Insitutions such as the community, family, religion ( yes I know many here would disagree, but religion is a major insitution for social cohesion), and other social organizations. 

While I know this has nothing to do with Hillary for President, which is not a comfortable idea for me, I just felt a need to rant some.  I've noticed Elvi tends to be the one to curb things back on track, so I'll go ahead and apologize in advance to her.