Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Labor Pains In Colorado
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 16 of 166 (656294)
03-17-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
03-17-2012 2:01 PM


But if we are considering them, then we need to consider the income from every member of the family.
Ahh, right. Because small children should get a job, right?? A worker with no children has just as much disposable income as one with as few as one child? Financially (strictly financially speaking) children are a black hole for income. The only ROI for money spent on children is their well-being and potentially how they will turn out.
Secondly, if we ARE considering the income of every member of the family and there ARE children but only, say, one worker, then every child takes away from the income and is a negative integer.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 2:01 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:06 PM hooah212002 has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 17 of 166 (656296)
03-17-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
03-17-2012 2:01 PM


As long as we are nitpicking
hooah writes:
Why would you assume there wasn't? Are families not important enough to consider when calculating living cost that you should only factor in people with no children?
Jon writes:
Sure they are. But if we are considering them, then we need to consider the income from every member of the family.
Of course there are certain families where more than one member works.
If you and your significant other had kids, for example...could both of you work? Who would care for the kids??
* If a household had two or three able bodied workers, does that still excuse the fact that minimum wage jobs are helping stockholders and business owners at the expense of the workers?
There are several wages paid at safeway. The workers who are department leads and head clerks usually get 40 hours and a liveable wage. There are many part time workers, and the new ones receive minimum wage and are given more hours. The older workers, part time such as myself, are often given less hours.
My point is that the corporations are whining that they must compete with other non union corporations, where the top wages often never exceed ten dollars an hour....which factored for inflation is essentially a minimum wage ten years ago. Health care has doubled for us in the past six months.
Some say the market determines the value of labor. This surely helps jars "guests" but does little for the lifetime residents of the US village.
Unions may say that the workers should unite and argue for their own value. Corporations by and large will seek only the lowest common denominators whenever possible.
I suppose that my argument is that US corporations care only for their bottom line and not for the integrity of the worker. They would argue that as long as people are willing to work for scraps, scraps are not a bad thing.
Granted there are many cons to unionism. It is a front for liberal politics and special interests. The union leaders make decent salaries. The fact that tips my argument, however, is the wage disparity between union shops and non union shops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 2:01 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by hooah212002, posted 03-17-2012 4:10 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:12 PM Phat has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 166 (656297)
03-17-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
03-17-2012 10:46 AM


Hi Jon,
Why does the apartment have to have two bedrooms?
(1) it's a metric. The cost of a one bedroom apt is not that much less.
(2) Because in days past a family had one working member while the other took care of children. This basic family (good ol' family values eh?) would need two bedrooms - or more if they had many children.
Even if you consider both parents working there are areas where 80 hours at minimum wage is not sufficient ...
... and they still need to buy food and pay for utilities, transportation to work, etc.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 10:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:10 PM RAZD has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 166 (656298)
03-17-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by hooah212002
03-17-2012 2:23 PM


Secondly, if we ARE considering the income of every member of the family and there ARE children but only, say, one worker, then every child takes away from the income and is a negative integer.
Why are you still pretending there can only be one worker?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 03-17-2012 2:23 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 03-17-2012 4:11 PM Jon has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 166 (656299)
03-17-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
03-17-2012 2:02 PM


Yes. What part of that strikes you as unreasonable?
How many people's income should it require to rent a single apartment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 2:02 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 166 (656300)
03-17-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
03-17-2012 4:02 PM


The cost of a one bedroom apt is not that much less.
Of course it is. Don't be silly.
This basic family (good ol' family values eh?) would need two bedrooms - or more if they had many children.
Well that's not the employer's problem.
Because in days past a family had one working member while the other took care of children.
Folk need to stop living in the past.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2012 4:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2012 4:23 PM Jon has replied
 Message 29 by hooah212002, posted 03-17-2012 4:24 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2012 4:37 PM Jon has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 22 of 166 (656301)
03-17-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
03-17-2012 3:37 PM


Re: As long as we are nitpicking
If you and your significant other had kids, for example...could both of you work? Who would care for the kids??
I've been lucky to get jobs that make well over minimum wage, but for some reason or another been in situations where it's not enough (I have a history of poor poor financial decisions, but am clearing that up as of late). Every time it comes up where my significant other at the time should look for a job, we've found that she would have to make substantially more than minimum wage in order to even cover the cost of child care. That's not even factoring in the idea of sending your small child (toddler, infant) to a sitter while both parents work all the time just to get by. Of course, if you absolutely have to do that, then by all means do it. I, personally, would prefer to be strapped for cash than dump my kids off at daycare where they get bounced around (and I have done exactly that).
Moreover, I find it disgusting that other people feel they have the ability to dictate what is good for someone else or what other people should be able to afford. There is a saying that is something like "don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes".

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 03-17-2012 3:37 PM Phat has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 23 of 166 (656302)
03-17-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jon
03-17-2012 4:06 PM


I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no family of your own or if you do, you've been fortunate enough to have substantial employment... News flash: there are poor people in the world who are either single PARENT families or have situations that negate the spouse getting a job.
See my message 22.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:06 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:12 PM hooah212002 has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 166 (656303)
03-17-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
03-17-2012 3:37 PM


Re: As long as we are nitpicking
I suppose that my argument is that US corporations care only for their bottom line and not for the integrity of the worker.
Sure. That's exactly what they're designed to do.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 03-17-2012 3:37 PM Phat has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 166 (656304)
03-17-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by hooah212002
03-17-2012 4:11 PM


I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no family of your own.
So you have no reason for assuming only one worker?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 03-17-2012 4:11 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by hooah212002, posted 03-17-2012 4:14 PM Jon has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 166 (656305)
03-17-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
03-16-2012 5:39 PM


Who's To Blame
Phat writes:
Union wages are what saves a middle class of consumers, however...nobody can help the economy (apart from wealthy stockholders) much by making $8.00 an hour...especially with inflation being factored in. I am open to ideas concerning this grim economic situation. ...................
Republicans crow about creating jobs, but what good are minimum wage jobs in todays economic dynamic?
Union jobs are what obliterates the middle class employment and of consumers of American products. .
It is the union thug leaders who oppose right to work laws, ever working to legislate and implement laws which forbid competitive arbitration for contracts.
For example, here in NY state all government jobs are not open to best price bidding but must be expensive union labor. This hurts the middle class whose tax $$ must pay the union thugocracy.
Union dues, regardless of edeology of the payers, is essentially a bribe/contribution to the Democratic establishment which in turn mandates union expensive contracts for employment.
The NEA equally mandates teachers union membership for the same reason. Dues, regardless of affiliation go to the coffers of the Obama type establishment.
As for creating jobs, can you blame a company who has the choice of paying union labor or foreign workers for going offshore for employment. I don't. Companies are committed to the best $$ return for their stockholders. That's the only sensible alternative.
So Phat, you need to appreciat the stockholders, who for the most part are the middle class. Whether or not they are middle or high income, without them, there would be no commerce in the US an we would be as the Muslim block of nations and other third world countries who produce nothing, including jobs.
I didn't have time to review so bear with errors.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 03-16-2012 5:39 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 03-17-2012 5:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 27 of 166 (656306)
03-17-2012 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jon
03-17-2012 4:12 PM


I've already explained why that is not always the case. If you aren't going to address anything other than one sentence of my replies, there is no further reason to have this discussion.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:12 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 6:44 PM hooah212002 has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 28 of 166 (656309)
03-17-2012 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jon
03-17-2012 4:10 PM


Hi Jon,
Of course it is. Don't be silly.
Of course it isn't (assertion is so easy). If you claim it isn't then provide the evidence.
In a single bedroom apt you rent a kitchen area with appliances, living area, dining area, bathroom and a bedroom.
When you add a second bedroom you do not double all these areas or even increase them in size. The added square feet of the second bedroom is a fraction of the square feet in a single bedroom apt. Curiously retail space is rented on the basis of sq ft.
Well that's not the employer's problem.
No, but under the social contract it is his obligation to pay a fair wage for work performed. How you judge fair wage is by how much it can support a small family. This was the original basis for the federal minimum wage.
The picture I posted above show graphically why there is so much poverty in the US.
Folk need to stop living in the past.
Yes, I'd much rather live in a future that paid a fair wage, than go back to the past when child labor was a factor in family values.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:10 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 6:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 29 of 166 (656310)
03-17-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jon
03-17-2012 4:10 PM


Folk need to stop living in the past.
They have stopped. Which is why single parent households are rampant.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 03-17-2012 4:10 PM Jon has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 30 of 166 (656311)
03-17-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by hooah212002
03-17-2012 11:34 AM


Hi hooah212002,
For example: the Federal minimum wage is $7.25, while the minimum wage in GA is a paltry $5.15. Live on that.
Even worse, do that on a part-time job basis, where most minimum wage jobs are (also allows employers to opt out of benefits for the workers, so two part-time jobs do not get you the same total package as full time work with benefits.
I paid over $15,000 for health insurance last year for just the two of us, and there is no way a family with both working at minimum wage could afford that and a two bedroom apt.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 03-17-2012 11:34 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024