So only the rich are doing good.
That's what I thought.
It wouldn't be exactly fair to say that America's economy is doing great then if only the rich are doing good.
I'm not even entirely sure what they based that on other than stock prices.
But it's something I see repeated a lot.
Minimum Wage
|
Minimum Wage
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So only the rich are doing good. That's what I thought. It wouldn't be exactly fair to say that America's economy is doing great then if only the rich are doing good. I'm not even entirely sure what they based that on other than stock prices. But it's something I see repeated a lot. That and employment plus retail sales. This trend is independent of the bubble burst in 2008, it's a systemic transfer of wealth. People cry about wealth redistribution when it's going one direction but not the other. So what's the idea to get wealth to transfer in the other direction?
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So what's the idea to get wealth to transfer in the other direction? The idea is to get economic mobility and access to middle class wages through affordable education and fair employment standards. Economic mobility is at it's lowest since the concept's existence. Right now, student debt is the 2 highest private debt in the country and underemployment is above 60%. It's not that people don't want to study or work, it's that they leave study with mountains of debt and no employment opportunities. (with the exception of trade and STEM fields, which are under-staffed) Jetackuu said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » The problem isn't that these jobs pay too little, it's that these jobs shouldn't be counted on to earn a living at all. Why do you and others keep repeating this Because it's true. Fast-food jobs shouldn't be able to support a family, they are meant as bottom of the rung entry level jobs for teenagers to get some work experience and spare cash. They SHOULD, however, be enough to support a single person living frugally while allowing them to save some money for education or specialized training. Those jobs need to be "available", not saddled to barely workable incomes for parents in their mid-20's. Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So only the rich are doing good. That's what I thought. It wouldn't be exactly fair to say that America's economy is doing great then if only the rich are doing good. I'm not even entirely sure what they based that on other than stock prices. But it's something I see repeated a lot. That and employment plus retail sales. This trend is independent of the bubble burst in 2008, it's a systemic transfer of wealth. People cry about wealth redistribution when it's going one direction but not the other. A: The talking point about "Job Creators" simply got out of hand to the point we believe the rich must have as much money as possible. Watching the money flow upward is seen as a good thing, as "Job Creators" will have the money to do what they do, so it's ok if money shifts to them. But if it went to the poor, the poor don't make jobs, so it'd be really bad. B: The Media is comprised of a lot of people with a lot of money, if some of that money is due to the richest people having more money, it's in their interest to see to it that money continues to flow up, rather than down. In either case, it being a good thing the money is flowing upwards is a lie perpetuated by the media first, and many went along with it sadly. Phoenix.Demonjustin said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So only the rich are doing good. That's what I thought. It wouldn't be exactly fair to say that America's economy is doing great then if only the rich are doing good. I'm not even entirely sure what they based that on other than stock prices. But it's something I see repeated a lot. That and employment plus retail sales. This trend is independent of the bubble burst in 2008, it's a systemic transfer of wealth. People cry about wealth redistribution when it's going one direction but not the other. A: The talking point about "Job Creators" simply got out of hand to the point we believe the rich must have as much money as possible. Watching the money flow upward is seen as a good thing, as "Job Creators" will have the money to do what they do, so it's ok if money shifts to them. But if it went to the poor, the poor don't make jobs, so it'd be really bad. B: The Media is comprised of a lot of people with a lot of money, if some of that money is due to the richest people having more money, it's in their interest to see to it that money continues to flow up, rather than down. In either case, it being a good thing the money is flowing upwards is a lie perpetuated by the media first, and many went along with it sadly. If you are blaming the media, what you're actually saying is that the American public is too stupid to understand that media is a for-profit industry that relies on ratings and ad dollars and can't be trusted as gospel. Which... sadly... I kind of agree with.
[+]
So student loan debt forgiveness?
Odin.Jassik said: » They SHOULD, however, be enough to support a single person living frugally while allowing them to save some money for education or specialized training. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So student loan debt forgiveness? Not forgiveness, no, but public funding has been reduced repeatedly to offset budget shortfalls and avoid raising taxes, which forces public schools to pass the cost onto students. If we're going to cut the fat in public programs, there are far better places to cut from than education. It's just accepted because higher education is viewed unfavorably by a large portion of the public for various reasons. Quote: Odin.Jassik said: » They SHOULD, however, be enough to support a single person living frugally while allowing them to save some money for education or specialized training. I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Odin.Jassik said: » I'm not really sure what you're asking here. So how do you tackle student debt then?
There was an idea floated around awhile ago that monthly payment would be reduced to a small percentage of your monthly income. It didn't pass, but the idea sorta made sense. Especially if the government were to buy, or in some cases buyback, all outstanding student loans. I'm not sure how the would work though, it seems like a lot of debt for the government to purchase. But if bond purchases are supposed to stimulate the economy, which they didn't, at least this idea would have made more sense. You're assuming the government (modern government) makes any kind of sense.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So how do you tackle student debt then? There was an idea floated around awhile ago that monthly payment would be reduced to a small percentage of your monthly income. It didn't pass, but the idea sorta made sense. Especially if the government were to buy, or in some cases buyback, all outstanding student loans. I'm not sure how the would work though, it seems like a lot of debt for the government to purchase. But if bond purchases are supposed to stimulate the economy, which they didn't, at least this idea would have made more sense. Well, since student debt can be collected far more easily that other kinds of debt, it would make sense that it would be based on your income. However, you can currently work out payment agreements with lenders and they can actually declare your account in default even if you're adhering to the payment arrangements they agreed to and seize your tax refund. So, it certainly needs to be treated differently than other forms of debt. It's really just a sour apple that needs to be addressed for future generations, stop or slow the runaway inflation of tuition and student debt before it cripples another generation. Side-note: I finally paid off my last student loan this year, I've paid off 3 cars in the same time, and somehow I paid it off in less than half the time most of my peers will. Bloodrose said: » You're assuming the government (modern government) makes any kind of sense. Odin.Jassik said: » I finally paid off my last student loan this year, I've paid off 3 cars in the same time, and somehow I paid it off in less than half the time most of my peers will. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » I finally paid off my last student loan this year, I've paid off 3 cars in the same time, and somehow I paid it off in less than half the time most of my peers will. In some ways, sure. I feel great for that accomplishment, but I feel terrible for my peers. Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » I finally paid off my last student loan this year, I've paid off 3 cars in the same time, and somehow I paid it off in less than half the time most of my peers will. In some ways, sure. I feel great for that accomplishment, but I feel terrible for my peers. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Bloodrose said: » You're assuming the government (modern government) makes any kind of sense. Watching US politics, I find it hard to believe anyone really believes the politicians on either side are really out for their constituents. Edit: Ok, not *that* hard for some areas.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » The problem isn't that these jobs pay too little, it's that these jobs shouldn't be counted on to earn a living at all. Why do you and others keep repeating this Because it's true. Fast-food jobs shouldn't be able to support a family, they are meant as bottom of the rung entry level jobs for teenagers to get some work experience and spare cash. They SHOULD, however, be enough to support a single person living frugally while allowing them to save some money for education or specialized training. Those jobs need to be "available", not saddled to barely workable incomes for parents in their mid-20's. Going to just have to disagree with you, as it's not the case at all. Bloodrose said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Bloodrose said: » You're assuming the government (modern government) makes any kind of sense. Watching US politics, I find it hard to believe anyone really believes the politicians on either side are really out for their constituents. Edit: Ok, not *that* hard for some areas. Well it is easy for politicians to not care about there constituents when only 30% of people turn out for a vote. Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » The problem isn't that these jobs pay too little, it's that these jobs shouldn't be counted on to earn a living at all. Why do you and others keep repeating this Because it's true. Fast-food jobs shouldn't be able to support a family, they are meant as bottom of the rung entry level jobs for teenagers to get some work experience and spare cash. They SHOULD, however, be enough to support a single person living frugally while allowing them to save some money for education or specialized training. Those jobs need to be "available", not saddled to barely workable incomes for parents in their mid-20's. Going to just have to disagree with you, as it's not the case at all. whats to disagree with? Entry level jobs of that type WERE designed for extreme basic workforce experience.. Why should society have to accomodate for those in more demanding positions(family of 4 in your 40's, for example) Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » The problem isn't that these jobs pay too little, it's that these jobs shouldn't be counted on to earn a living at all. Why do you and others keep repeating this Because it's true. Fast-food jobs shouldn't be able to support a family, they are meant as bottom of the rung entry level jobs for teenagers to get some work experience and spare cash. They SHOULD, however, be enough to support a single person living frugally while allowing them to save some money for education or specialized training. Those jobs need to be "available", not saddled to barely workable incomes for parents in their mid-20's. Going to just have to disagree with you, as it's not the case at all. Let's approach it from a different angle, then... Why do you think that the most basic of entry-level unskilled jobs should support a family? What do you consider a living wage? Is it just a number target or are you focusing on disposable income? What do you consider basic needs? I know we've talked about this topic before, and we're mostly in agreement, but I'd like to see your idea of what a living wage is and why those jobs should provide it. Zackan said: » whats to disagree with? Entry level jobs of that type WERE designed for extreme basic workforce experience.. Why should society have to accomodate for those in more demanding positions(family of 4 in your 40's, for example) Odin.Jassik said: » Let's approach it from a different angle, then... Why do you think that the most basic of entry-level unskilled jobs should support a family? What do you consider a living wage? Is it just a number target or are you focusing on disposable income? What do you consider basic needs? I know we've talked about this topic before, and we're mostly in agreement, but I'd like to see your idea of what a living wage is and why those jobs should provide it. Any full time position should be able to support a family, then again I'm of the opinion that one shouldn't have to work for a living, but let's not get on that tangent again, as that's a goal, not current environment. There is a definition for "living wage" if you want me to copy/paste it I will, but why quibble over it? No full time job should pay out below the poverty line. If a company cannot afford to pay it's employees to live then they shouldn't be in business. Curious, are you from a densely populated area? Jetackuu said: » Zackan said: » whats to disagree with? Entry level jobs of that type WERE designed for extreme basic workforce experience.. Why should society have to accomodate for those in more demanding positions(family of 4 in your 40's, for example) Odin.Jassik said: » Let's approach it from a different angle, then... Why do you think that the most basic of entry-level unskilled jobs should support a family? What do you consider a living wage? Is it just a number target or are you focusing on disposable income? What do you consider basic needs? I know we've talked about this topic before, and we're mostly in agreement, but I'd like to see your idea of what a living wage is and why those jobs should provide it. Any full time position should be able to support a family, then again I'm of the opinion that one shouldn't have to work for a living, but let's not get on that tangent again, as that's a goal, not current environment. There is a definition for "living wage" if you want me to copy/paste it I will, but why quibble over it? No full time job should pay out below the poverty line. If a company cannot afford to pay it's employees to live then they shouldn't be in business. Curious, are you from a densely populated area? I've lived in both rural and metro areas over the years, I currently live in a place where the minimum wage is barely more than half of what is considered a living wage for a couple with 1 kid. So, believe me, I understand the difference. However, if you doubled the wage, it would necessarily either result in fewer positions being available which seriously hurts young people entering the workforce or results in increasing the cost of their products. (because you know they wouldn't allow paying their employees to impact their billions in profits). It also has the effect of pushing the floor up to where tradesman enter the workforce, further disincentivizing people to enter those fields. Why would you spend 1-2 years and 20K to enter the workforce later at the same wage as people working in fast food? I agree, all wages need to be higher in the lower rungs, but simply raising the floor by 120% will cause more harm than good in the short and long term. Oh I agree that shooting it right to that $15/hour mark would be a bad idea, and it doesn't address those other issues.
As to the rest: too tired, will PM ya later about it if I feel like it, I have to get up in 4.5~ hours, so I'm going to bed. Jetackuu said: » Zackan said: » whats to disagree with? Entry level jobs of that type WERE designed for extreme basic workforce experience.. Why should society have to accomodate for those in more demanding positions(family of 4 in your 40's, for example) Yes I am asking why concerning myself with the wage of a Entry level, Unskilled(meaning having a degree), Unlicensed positions is societies problem. These are not contractors, truck drivers, or psychologists. Anyone and everyone can get these positions(as long as the employers are hiring) . to work at mcdonalds only requirement is 'do you breathe' Hell, unarmed security guards are 'licensed' and they make min wage, i would definitely be willing to fight the wage of that position. Man, and I thought that I looked down on people too much...
Such an interesting thread. People arguing over things that have been summarized up time and time again. I think F Scott Fitzgerald said it best regarding the American and the proletariat.
However, to really approach the matter and get at the heart of it...simply ask: Should the minimum wage be comparable to the cost of living? |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.