If you put in 8 hours/day every week, should you receive a wage you can live upon?

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

If you put in 8 hours/day every week, should you receive a wage you can live on?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
An education never guaranteed you a good job. It never has and it never will. What will guarantee you to be a lot less likely to get a good job is no education.

Obviously, I don't disagree with that. My point is that the free market dogmatists are evading reality when they spout the stale, "get an education so you can get a better job" bromide. By spouting off that stale bromide, they can evade having to address whether the top 5% should be allowed to have the bulk of the wealth produced and whether there are more just ways of distributing the wealth.
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,731
428
126
If a 40 or 48 hour week job can't provide enough money for food, clothing and a rented room somewhere, there is something wrong somewhere.

Maybe there is too much taxation meaning that job position can't generate enough revenue for the employer.

Maybe the food costs are too high because of regulations.

Maybe there is something wrong with the price of rents and housing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something wrong with a job that needs to be done but can't pay enough for food and a rented room somewhere.

All this discussion if the fault is of the fat greedy CEO or the stupid lazy worker is just left vs right bickering when there are so many more potential problems than the fat greedy CEO (some are like that, others aren't) or the stupid lazy worker (some are like that, others aren't).

Wages is the price people sell their time and skills for. It uses a fancy word but it is just a cost/price.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,890
4,996
136
The government has no right to dictate the wages and should just stay out.


Outside of your psychotic fantasy world, the government does indeed have the right to dictate wages.

original.0
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Obviously, I don't disagree with that. My point is that the free market dogmatists are evading reality when they spout the stale, "get an education so you can get a better job" bromide. By spouting off that stale bromide, they can evade having to address whether the top 5% should be allowed to have the bulk of the wealth produced and whether there are more just ways of distributing the wealth.
Ahh, so it's the top 5% now. "Allowed to have" is a great choice of words. It's a very telling peek at your mindset.

It's gone from 1% to 5% percent in a very short time span. Mr. Snapper here will ratchet that number up as high as he feel it needs to be. 30%, 50%, 80% - there is no ceiling on how much should be the property of the state. He has lots of like-minded friends in government.

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Ahh, so it's the top 5% now. "Allowed to have" is a great choice of words. It's a very telling peek at your mindset.

It's gone from 1% to 5% percent in a very short time span. Mr. Snapper here will ratchet that number up as high as he feel it needs to be. 30%, 50%, 80% - there is no ceiling on how much should be the property of the state. He has lots of like-minded friends in government.

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

Quick, deflect, deflect, deflect!

Incoming strawman, incoming strawman!
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Ahh, so it's the top 5% now. "Allowed to have" is a great choice of words. It's a very telling peek at your mindset.

Considering the federal reserve has been dumping $85 billion a month into the banks for over a year, yea, we are allowing the banks to have unlimited capital at the expense of the tax payers.

Why do the rich keep getting richer? Because the federal reserve can print money out of thin air.

We "allow" wall street to have unlimited money through bailouts and stimulus packages.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Are you serious?


Clue found here: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/


.

My mistake, I thought you were someone far more intelligent.

Having the right to regulate something is different than actually having the power to regulate something. You stated the gov't had the "right" to regulate wages and when I asked you on what basis that right exists, you merely confirmed that the gov't does indeed regulate wages (as if that wasn't common knowledge). Forget I asked.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Ah, I love all the bullshit personal stories that pop up in these threads.

"My uncle was born as a one-legged pony but managed to work his way up from a floor sweeper to KING OF THE TOWN!

My simple pea brain erroneously concludes that it's possible for everyone to pull their socks up and work hard and get what they want."

Oh boy, it's Veliko the loser again, to tell everyone that worked their way to a better life that their stories are bullshit.

Cry more, you loser.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Oh boy, it's Veliko the loser again, to tell everyone that worked their way to a better life that their stories are bullshit.

Cry more, you loser.

I would like to know how much Veliko works and what his yearly salary is. If he makes more then the median wage and doesn't donate it to others less fortunate than he is nothing buy a hypocrite.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
If a 40 or 48 hour week job can't provide enough money for food, clothing and a rented room somewhere, there is something wrong somewhere.

Maybe there is too much taxation meaning that job position can't generate enough revenue for the employer.

Maybe the food costs are too high because of regulations.

Maybe there is something wrong with the price of rents and housing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something wrong with a job that needs to be done but can't pay enough for food and a rented room somewhere.

All this discussion if the fault is of the fat greedy CEO or the stupid lazy worker is just left vs right bickering when there are so many more potential problems than the fat greedy CEO (some are like that, others aren't) or the stupid lazy worker (some are like that, others aren't).

Wages is the price people sell their time and skills for. It uses a fancy word but it is just a cost/price.

Maybe the corporate profits as percent of GDP are at an all time high, while wages are at an all time low. And more of those wages are going to upper management. So the fault of the fat greedy CEO and Wall Street is not too far off the mark.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Try opening a business without a business license and see where that gets you.

Go back to the beginnings of 'state' (i.e a social collective based on a common self identification) and 'business' (i.e. the concept that one can trade one thing for another thing and do so on a regular basis and feel that you gain something from each exchange) has always existed at the whim of the state.

[somewhat awkwardly phrased but it's understandable]

It's disgusting (but not surprising) that leftists believe that the act of two individuals trading, one of the most basic concepts of human interaction, exists only because others allow it to exist.

I can just see the leftwing cavemen standing around, watching as the rightwing cavemen were trading , and deciding that it wasn't fair that they be allowed to trade their berries and sharpened sticks without giving some of their berries and sticks to the cavemen who sat around all day doing nothing.

The left is little more than the mob demanding protection money.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
Obviously, I don't disagree with that. My point is that the free market dogmatists are evading reality when they spout the stale, "get an education so you can get a better job" bromide. By spouting off that stale bromide, they can evade having to address whether the top 5% should be allowed to have the bulk of the wealth produced and whether there are more just ways of distributing the wealth.

The top 5%? I think you need to examine which income levels constitute the top 5% before you make statements like that. Many of us are in the top 5% and aren't by any stretch "rich."

Can you just summarize what you think needs to be done exactly? I agree that a shrinking middle class is a huge problem, but I'm not sure I recall a succinct list of actions from you which would preserve the middle class.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
From some of his responses, I tend to think Veliko is probably a college kid who doesn't understand the real world. If that's not the case, his posts are even more alarming.

I dont know what college he goes to/went to, but I dont remember anyone taking serious courses making penis jokes.

Maybe the kids in developmental math. Might explain a few things...
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
It used to be, corporations were chartered "for the public good". They are responsible for that. If they are not, they should be disbanded, and their charters revoked.

So you'd like to revert to an agrarian society? As leftists are so fond of saying, you can move to Somalia if you don't like corporations.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,890
4,996
136
My mistake, I thought you were someone far more intelligent.

Having the right to regulate something is different than actually having the power to regulate something. You stated the gov't had the "right" to regulate wages and when I asked you on what basis that right exists, you merely confirmed that the gov't does indeed regulate wages (as if that wasn't common knowledge). Forget I asked.

Sorry, I guess you need another clue. No problem:

gty_us_constitution_jef_111215_mn.jpg