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

[SpatiallyAware]

If they really were so keenly aware, they wouldn't be so stingy and selfish.



If you think that the US is the easiest place for a poor person to survive in, you are incredibly deluded.

Unfortunately it comes from both sides. You have one side, doing everything possible to continue cashing the government check and will vote based purely on what sort of handouts they get out of the deal.... Then you have the other side, doing everything possible to continue working and making money, and will vote based purely on what will help them continue in their career.


The big difference between these two groups, in my mind anyway, is the "working" group pays for the "non-working" group. And, the more you try and hold back the working group the less money gets dumped back into the welfare system, so it really hurts both groups. The "selfish working group" is a necessary evil. The "lazy handout takers" are just wastes to society.


What is a better country for a non-working and refusing to work person? I'm not talking on any one metric IE healthcare. From a 10,000ft view, what country has better living conditions for someone who is not willing to work and pay into the system?

 

[Veliko]

Unfortunately it comes from both sides. You have one side, doing everything possible to continue cashing the government check and will vote based purely on what sort of handouts they get out of the deal.... Then you have the other side, doing everything possible to continue working and making money, and will vote based purely on what will help them continue in their career.

The big difference between these two groups, in my mind anyway, is the "working" group pays for the "non-working" group. And, the more you try and hold back the working group the less money gets dumped back into the welfare system, so it really hurts both groups. The "selfish working group" is a necessary evil. The "lazy handout takers" are just wastes to society.

For much of history, the 'working' group were given free reign to do what they wanted.

Life was shit for most people because that 'working' group took whatever they wanted.

The crash of 2007 happened because the reigns were released on certain sections of the 'working' group.

The 'working' group have increased their wealth significantly over the past two or three decades so the notion that they're being held back is a false one.

What is a better country for a non-working and refusing to work person? I'm not talking on any one metric IE healthcare. From a 10,000ft view, what country has better living conditions for someone who is not willing to work and pay into the system?

Going into specifics would be a rather tedious and lengthy process, but the best country for that certainly isn't the US.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And still, no one has answered the most important question... What is a "living wage" to those of you who want it increased?


Currently, in my state, someone living alone and without kids receive per month:

$1000 welfare, you get this once you bomb about 15 state-setup interviews and are deemed unemployable. You have to show up to the welfare office a couple times a year to "prove" you are still bombing interviews and are unemployable.

$200-$300 food stamps, along with the church based food programs.

$400 housing voucher or provided housing, usually with 2 roommates in a house in your chosen area

Then you get about $2000 back from the state on your tax return, even with no income, along with $800 or so federal.

On top of that you get access to free training/school/job programs, if you choose to leave the "system".

Most of these people are also claiming or in the process of claiming disability, the majority in my state apparently claim degenerative disc back disease which is not provable.... This is the real golden ticket, as you now get pain meds to either sell for an extra $500+ / month or use to get high.



AND this all assumes you don't have kids, which is another golden ticket. Send them to grandma, cash in the tax and food stamp benefits... Wins all around.


Edit:

And note that these handout programs, all except welfare, are available for anyone working minimum wage as well. So as a pseudo "base salary" you can either be unemployable and get $12k of government checks per year, or work 1 minimum wage job and get $15k worth of wages per year.

And a decent hard-working person would work 1 min wage job plus go to school, or 2 min wage jobs.


If you can't afford to live on that salary then move. That's what the "working class" does, when they can't afford their house or area... They move. A non-working or poor person should do the same thing, not act like they should be able to live in downtown manhattan while flipping burgers at mcd's.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

For much of history, the 'working' group were given free reign to do what they wanted.

Life was shit for most people because that 'working' group took whatever they wanted.

The crash of 2007 happened because the reigns were released on certain sections of the 'working' group.

The 'working' group have increased their wealth significantly over the past two or three decades so the notion that they're being held back is a false one.
---
Going into specifics would be a rather tedious and lengthy process, but the best country for that certainly isn't the US.

Are you serious? You really think that the hard working Americans who support these losers just "take whatever they want"? And that they have "free reign"?

Your mindset is baffling to me, that you truly think that working America is your enemy and must be "reigned in". Their wealth is increased? Awesome, then so are taxes, now they are being ticketed at 40% or more, so on top of dumping more money as a result of wealth increase a then larger portion is taken. So good on them, and you should be helping them make wealth not trying to send them to another country, so their tax dollars are no longer used to support the lazy.


And sure, a very small minority of elite bankers and crooked politicians are able to screw with the system. Name ANY country where this isn't an issue? Past that, name ANY country where they have less of an issue with this?


I'm not asking you for details. I'm asking you to name any one country where a non-working person has an easier life than the good 'ole USA.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you think that the US is the easiest place for a poor person to survive in, you are incredibly deluded.

I've traveled a bit and seen poverty in a number of countries. If I were really poor...I can't imagine there being many countries better to live in than the US.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

For much of history, the 'working' group were given free reign to do what they wanted.

Life was shit for most people because that 'working' group took whatever they wanted.

The crash of 2007 happened because the reigns were released on certain sections of the 'working' group.

The 'working' group have increased their wealth significantly over the past two or three decades so the notion that they're being held back is a false one.



Going into specifics would be a rather tedious and lengthy process, but the best country for that certainly isn't the US.

Just who is this "working group"? The middle class?

 

[nehalem256]

And still, no one has answered the most important question... What is a "living wage" to those of you who want it increased?

Its simple.

(1) More than the current minimum wage (so you can keep poor people voting for you)

(2) Lower than the actual calculated "living wage" I post to keep you from looking insane.

 

[Veliko]

Are you serious? You really think that the hard working Americans who support these losers just "take whatever they want"? And that they have "free reign"?

I said nothing like that. This is what I said:

Note the use of the words "for much of history" rather than "the hard working Americans"

For much of history, the 'working' group were given free reign to do what they wanted.

Your mindset is baffling to me, that you truly think that working America is your enemy and must be "reigned in". Their wealth is increased? Awesome, then so are taxes, now they are being ticketed at 40% or more, so on top of dumping more money as a result of wealth increase a then larger portion is taken. So good on them, and you should be helping them make wealth not trying to send them to another country, so their tax dollars are no longer used to support the lazy.

No, such an inbalance of wealth is not 'awesome' unless you are one of those wealthy people.

And sure, a very small minority of elite bankers and crooked politicians are able to screw with the system. Name ANY country where this isn't an issue? Past that, name ANY country where they have less of an issue with this?

Sticking with what happened in 2007, some countries that weren't affected so much with it were Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia.

The point is that a section of the working group were released, meaning no-one was holding them back, and they fucked things up for everyone.

I'm not asking you for details. I'm asking you to name any one country where a non-working person has an easier life than the good 'ole USA.

The UK, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I said nothing like that. This is what I said:

Note the use of the words "for much of history" rather than "the hard working Americans"

No, such an inbalance of wealth is not 'awesome' unless you are one of those wealthy people.

Sticking with what happened in 2007, some countries that weren't affected so much with it were Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia.

The point is that a section of the working group were released, meaning no-one was holding them back, and they fucked things up for everyone.

The UK, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark

Your mindset is truly borderline communist.

Disparity of wealth is going to be a fact in any working society. It's truly almost unbelievable to me that you have an issue with any imbalance of wealth. Our country is so fantastic because you can close that gap by.... working. By bettering yourself. By educating yourself with all of our free programs, tuition assistance, and job training. We live in one of the very few countries where starting out dirt poor and becoming independent and moderate successful is not only possible... It's simple, and you get government help doing so.


And it is laughable how to try to relate other countries not being as affected (they were still affected) by OUR internal finance meltdowns as relating any way to them having a better individual internal system of preventing said meltdowns. Reverse the "meltdown" and we would be almost unaffected. So, we still have a better system of protections than any of these countries.


"UK, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark" Is that your list of countries where a non-working person is better off? Laughable. I'm literally sitting here chuckling. You have no idea of what goes on in the world, do you?

None of these countries will allow you to receive ~$20k per year in almost entirely unchecked benefits for an indefinite amount of time. Sure, you can lose your job and survive ok for a year or two... But not 5. Certainly not 10. You either work, help provide in some way, or you get your benefits pulled.

 

[HumblePie]

Want to see how bad the "poor" have it that know how to scam the system?

Check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMt9hNa_9SA

Husband and wife bought their dream house in a nice neighborhood. Really nice expensive house. Some of the houses in their neighborhood were sold to people with really bad credit during the housing boom. Those houses foreclosed and went under. The houses were sold at ridiculously low rates. This man's house went from a 300K house to a 14K house because all the comparables in area were sold for that amount. Since houses were selling for dirt cheap, even the poorest people could move in. Housing values dropped. The neighborhood went from a nice no crime area to a heavy crime area with the influx of human trash.

The husband and wife didn't want to sell the house and take a massive hit, but they didn't want to stay there either. They couldn't afford to buy another house and make 2 house payments. They were also stuck in the fact that there was no one in their right mind going to pay market rent rates for their house so they could move out allowing the rent to pay for mortgage on one house while they bought another.

So in comes setting the house up for section 8. The government pays the rent for a poor destitute person to live in the house. The poor person pays practically nothing to live in luxury. $50 a month was the rent the poor person had to pay. This same poor person had food stamps to cover all food costs, welfare check, and transportation assistance. They had basically everything the husband and wife had previously but had to work their asses off to own.

So what does a poor person that gets handed everything they could possibly want in life do when living like that? Watch the video and be disgusted. This is what human trash does when they are handed everything.

 

[Veliko]

Your mindset is truly borderline communist.

Keep drinking that Kool Aid!

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Keep drinking that Kool Aid!

You have made it clear that you do not feel like we should have an imbalance of wealth.

And explain to me how you propose we remove this income disparity any further than it already is?

People making $75k-150k are living in nice houses and driving late model vehicles. It stands to reason that someone making $30k should not be able to afford a late model chrysler with 22" wheels and a 4 bedroom house with no roommates.

If people who "make" $20-$30k are able to afford (through handout programs) these nice houses and late model cars then we will have fewer people striving to make $75k+.

Or, even worse, how about people who make a total family income of $50k, thus don't get the handout programs, who are then unable to drive nice cars and live in nice houses at all...

Meanwhile they have neighbors gaming the handout systems who have nicer cars and tvs than the working lower-middle class.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And don't forget who pays for these handout programs..... It's the group you despise so much, the hard-working americans, the people striving to make more money and better themselves.


The father of 8, taking in $2k per month in benefits, is not providing to our society in any way, shape or form. The last thing we should do is promote that lifestyle, it should be shunned.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Its simple.

(1) More than the current minimum wage (so you can keep poor people voting for you)

(2) Lower than the actual calculated "living wage" I post to keep you from looking insane.

Exactly this.

That's what is so sad...... These lapdogs are so brainwashed and incapable of independent thought that they truly do believe that increase the minimum wage (to what mythical amount, why will no one answer this??) is the solution to any problem in this country.



I'm still waiting to hear what their perception is of a "livable wage".

 

[nehalem256]

Exactly this.

That's what is so sad...... These lapdogs are so brainwashed and incapable of independent thought that they truly do believe that increase the minimum wage (to what mythical amount, why will no one answer this??) is the solution to any problem in this country.

I'm still waiting to hear what their perception is of a "livable wage".

Actually I am pretty sure that the website I linked on what a real "living wage" is came from a liberal.

We spoke with Dr. Diana Pearce, founder and director of the Center for Women's Welfare at the University of Washington School of Social Work, and creator of the Self-Sufficiency Standard. As she explains in this web exclusive video, above, she created the Self-Sufficiency Standard as a geographic-specific yardstick for how much is enough to live on while remaining independent of public or private assistance. At MIT, Amy K. Glasmeier has created a user-friendly calculator based in large part on Pearce's work that makes it easy to find what it takes to be self-sufficient in your area.
...
The Standard grew out of my early work on "the feminization of poverty"-- that is that women are disproportionately bearing the burden of poverty

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/11/how-much-is-enough.html

Its fun seeing liberals own research show that liberal values are inconsistent with reality!

 

[Veliko]

You have made it clear that you do not feel like we should have an imbalance of wealth.

And explain to me how you propose we remove this income disparity any further than it already is?

People making $75k-150k are living in nice houses and driving late model vehicles. It stands to reason that someone making $30k should not be able to afford a late model chrysler with 22" wheels and a 4 bedroom house with no roommates.

If people who "make" $20-$30k are able to afford (through handout programs) these nice houses and late model cars then we will have fewer people striving to make $75k+.

Or, even worse, how about people who make a total family income of $50k, thus don't get the handout programs, who are then unable to drive nice cars and live in nice houses at all...

Meanwhile they have neighbors gaming the handout systems who have nicer cars and tvs than the working lower-middle class.

To be honest, your post here suggests that you don't even understand the concept of why such an imbalance of wealth is bad.

Consider North Korea, a nation that is often used on this forum as an example of why Communism is bad.

In NK, the wealth is concentrated at the top amongst a very small number of people. The imbalance of wealth is severe.

Now, given that you've already said the following:

It's truly almost unbelievable to me that you have an issue with any imbalance of wealth.

Could you explain why you don't think NK would be somewhere you'd want to live?

And just to nip the inevitable responses before they appear: no, I do not think NK is a nice to place to live, nor would I want to live in any nation that copies what it does.

 

[Veliko]

I'm still waiting to hear what their perception is of a "livable wage".

Well, this was mooted on page one of this very thread:

We could easily arrive at a reasonable figure, per region, for what a living wage would be. It isn't the wage you want to make, it's a wage that would minimally sustain you.

However, this is an Internet forum so if you're expecting a detailed 50-page manifesto then you're going to be disappointed.

 

[nehalem256]

Well, this was mooted on page one of this very thread:

However, this is an Internet forum so if you're expecting a detailed 50-page manifesto then you're going to be disappointed.

How is expecting a single number a 50-page manifesto?

What is a "living wage" for a single mom with 2 kids. Feel free to pick whatever geographic region you prefer.

Could you explain why you don't think NK would be somewhere you'd want to live?

Because I don't like being dog food

 

[SpatiallyAware]

To be honest, your post here suggests that you don't even understand the concept of why such an imbalance of wealth is bad.

Consider North Korea, a nation that is often used on this forum as an example of why Communism is bad.

In NK, the wealth is concentrated at the top amongst a very small number of people. The imbalance of wealth is severe.

Now, given that you've already said the following:



Could you explain why you don't think NK would be somewhere you'd want to live?

And just to nip the inevitable responses before they appear: no, I do not think NK is a nice to place to live, nor would I want to live in any nation that copies what it does.

Do you really not feel embarrassed by flailing around with these ridiculous arguments and comparisons? Do you not understand that there are varying amounts of wealth disparity, and we in the US are nothing like NK.. I can't believe I even have to type that out.

Are you incapable of comprehending the difference between someone who took school seriously, became a professional, who has worked 40++ hours per week for years..... And why they can afford a nice car and house, while someone who has done nothing other than game our handout programs can't (or shouldn't) be able to afford a $40k car?

I still behind my statements 100%. If you don't care about your future, if you slack off and don't take life seriously, it is perfectly understandable to wake up at 30 years old with no future, and having to choose between $8 / hr at mcd's or jumping on the handout bandwagon.

And if you are said 30 year old loser, that is your fault. Not the working-class, not the bankers, not the school system.... And... Even better... is our system is geared to bail out losers like this, but many of them choose this life. It's easier to be lazy than it is to work. They would rather sit around and jack off than be proud and work.

And increasing the minimum wage will not change this one bit. It's not like 20 years ago flipping burgers was a proud thing, and all the sudden the pay for flipping burgers went down the toilet. These people knew what they were setting themselves up for, and the last thing we need is yet another "bailout".

 

[Veliko]

So do you or do you not care about wealth disparity?

Because if you're behind your statements 100%, you've made two different claims about it.

One being that you don't see why anyone would have an issue with it and then another saying that there are varying amounts of it.

And I have no idea why you're persisting with example of the person working 40 hours a week as it doesn't relate to anything I've said. Being concerned about wealth disparity doesn't mean I think everyone should be able to afford the same lifestyle.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

So do you or do you not care about wealth disparity?

Because if you're behind your statements 100%, you've made two different claims about it.

One being that you don't see why anyone would have an issue with it and then another saying that there are varying amounts of it.

And I have no idea why you're persisting with example of the person working 40 hours a week as it doesn't relate to anything I've said. Being concerned about wealth disparity doesn't mean I think everyone should be able to afford the same lifestyle.

You comparing US wealth disparity to NK wealth disparity is absolutely laughable.

I do not care about wealth disparity in a country which provides easy methods for someone to be successful if they work for it... via tuition programs, job training, pre-setup job interviews, etc. I'm not talking instant wealth, but if you put forth a moderate amount of effort you can afford a house, car, and support a family within 10-15 years.

That is vastly different from a country like NK, where no matter how hard you try, you are always a certain class.


And it has everything to do with what you've claimed in this thread... Your issues (as best as I can discern, anyway) revolve around our minimum wage not being enough to be "livable". Even though you refuse to define what you consider "livable", so it's a moot point.

 

[yllus]

And still, no one has answered the most important question... What is a "living wage" to those of you who want it increased?

I'll take a five minute and very amateur stab at this. The general definition would be an amount that:

- Covers housing costs in the lowest quantile of averaged housing costs in the state/district

- Covers food costs based on the Thrifty Plan or Low-Cost Plan by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a single person (the person earning the wage)

- Makes some basic allowance for monthly public transit costs in the area ($100ish?)

- Indexes all of the above to inflation

I'd say that the living wage would be rated per state, or maybe even per federal or state electoral region if you wanted to get more precise (I think this would lead to a fair amount of gaming though, so maybe a bad idea).

If you can't afford to live on that salary then move. That's what the "working class" does, when they can't afford their house or area... They move. A non-working or poor person should do the same thing, not act like they should be able to live in downtown manhattan while flipping burgers at mcd's.

I agree that this shouldn't lead to someone being able to live in Manhattan; the refusal of those out of work (with or without family root in an area) to move to a place with better employment chances has always irritated me.

At the same time, we do have to recognize that urban cities continue to be extremely desirable to live in - not just because of the amenities, but because they are in fact where jobs are (and where public transit tends to be better). Having the working poor travel 2-4 hours each way to work from living in the outskirts of a major city leaves them little time for additional education or time with socially stabilizing figures (their parents, spouses, children).

 

[Zaap]

The libertarian party platform is explicitly calling for the government to protect private property.

Lol. Statists.
This is how people like you manage to interpret the constitution as the communist manifesto. You just make up shit to read however you want, combined with no grasp of history or of what anything actually means.

Protecting a RIGHT is not the same thing as physically protecting what that right secures. You have a RIGHT to freedom of assembly. That is NOT the same as a guaranteed police escort when you're assembled with your ilk of like-minded knuckleheads. You have a RIGHT to freedom of the speech and press... that does NOT mean government is providing you with a printing press and typing the words for you.

Anyway, you guys are a good illustration of how statists twist litterally everything into big government worship.

You actually manage to get big government worship out of the libertarian agenda! LOL!

 

[exdeath]

Most Americans define "living wage" as "having the same stuff as everyone else" getting this whole "living wage" debate off to a bad start before it even gets started.

Survival is such a given its not even in the equation.

Beans and rice bitch! And keep your pants on.

And if raising kids and going to school at the same time is too hard, why did you have 5 more?

 

[yllus]

Protecting a RIGHT is not the same thing as physically protecting what that right secures. You have a RIGHT to freedom of assembly. That is NOT the same as a guaranteed police escort when you're assembled with your ilk of like-minded knuckleheads. You have a RIGHT to freedom of the speech and press... that does NOT mean government is providing you with a printing press and typing the words for you.

I think you're wrong on that. The government provides you with freedom of assembly by then providing police to protect your protest (if necessary). They wouldn't let a competing assembled group wade in and hit your group over the head with bats. Backing that right up with physical force if required is essential.

Same thing with owning a printing press - the government won't buy it for you, but they will provide armed protection to keep the mob outside your door from coming in, smashing the press and stringing you up. It's inherent to the right.