Other Resources The Political Joe » ACA and You can keep your health insurance Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 5
 
 
2015-06-04 2:16 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 



2015-06-04 2:21 PM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

2015-06-04 2:36 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

"as if they have a choice"  /rollseyes

Where the heck do you live?  Are all the people you know dumb lemmings that have no choices in life other than whoever decides to hand something to them?

2015-06-04 2:42 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

"as if they have a choice"  /rollseyes

Where the heck do you live?  Are all the people you know dumb lemmings that have no choices in life other than whoever decides to hand something to them?

Ok, you have no education, you're 18 years old, and you need a job.  Please tell me about the wonderful choices to get jobs with a living wage? 

Its a numbers question.  There are only X number of jobs that pay a living wage.  There are Y number of people who need a job.  Y is greater than X.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLVFqri-bf4



Edited by dmiller5 2015-06-04 2:53 PM
2015-06-04 4:02 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

Why be a douche.  I never said they should DIE.  I never said be homeless.  All I said was that the job is not worth a livable wage.  They will have to work 2 or three crappy jobs to live.    Also I didn't mention picking crops.  That is actually hard manual labor.  Cleaning houses is harder work than Mc D.  

Try not making crap up when you characterize what people say...

Maybe it is you that only hears what you want to hear...

2015-06-04 4:05 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

"as if they have a choice"  /rollseyes

Where the heck do you live?  Are all the people you know dumb lemmings that have no choices in life other than whoever decides to hand something to them?




See, this is the part I don't get:
Usually, as in this case, the same people who are opposed to the idea of companies paying people a living wage are the same ones who are opposed to the so-called "entitlement programs".

If you want to say that it shouldn't fall to the taxpayers to have to support people who can't afford to support themselves on what they get paid, fine. But why is it "socialist" or whatever you want to call it to expect that the company that profits from the person's labor should pay them enough that they don't have to have their living expenses subsidized by the rest of us?

If a huge company like McDonalds (or even a small mom-and-pop company) can't afford to pay their employees enough that a full-time employee still needs to rely on government entitlement programs to survive, I would argue they shouldn't be in business at all, since their business model is clearly flawed.

We're perfectly content to say "Hey, slacker, if you can't get a decent job, it's your fault--I shouldn't have to support you", but why is the reverse, "Hey, incompetant business owner, why can't you make enough money to pay your employees enough that they don't need goverment assistance?" not also true?

In my view, it's the business owner who's the "leech". Hes the one relying on the rest of us to patch the holes in his crappy business plan and support his employees, but for some reason, you're making the employee the enemy for not having the wherewithall to get a better job, while the business owner is given a free pass. Like I said, I don't get it.


2015-06-04 4:29 PM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

Why be a douche.  I never said they should DIE.  I never said be homeless.  All I said was that the job is not worth a livable wage.  They will have to work 2 or three crappy jobs to live.    Also I didn't mention picking crops.  That is actually hard manual labor.  Cleaning houses is harder work than Mc D.  

Try not making crap up when you characterize what people say...

Maybe it is you that only hears what you want to hear...

Watch the namecalling.  

It is called a "livable wage" for a reason.  If you can't live on it......... you're going to be homeless, or unable to afford food, or unable to afford healthcare, and yes, people do die because of this.  So when you say that their job isn't worth a livable wage, you are saying that they aren't valuable enough to deserve to live.

some people don't have the skills, and will never get the skills to work a job that YOU think is worth it.  Someone has to do those jobs.  Also, you say picking crops is a livable job, why do they get paid pennies from this.  I guarantee you that YOU would not be able to make ends meet picking crops.

Anyone in this country that works a full time job, should be able to make ends meet. This is how we should base the minimum wage. End of story. It would solve the majority of our poverty and homelessness problems. Instead, companies like McDonalds make BILLIONS of dollars on the backs of employees who they abuse and take advantage of.

And you blame the employees for "not getting a better job." Shame on you.

 

2015-06-04 4:39 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

"as if they have a choice"  /rollseyes

Where the heck do you live?  Are all the people you know dumb lemmings that have no choices in life other than whoever decides to hand something to them?

See, this is the part I don't get: Usually, as in this case, the same people who are opposed to the idea of companies paying people a living wage are the same ones who are opposed to the so-called "entitlement programs". If you want to say that it shouldn't fall to the taxpayers to have to support people who can't afford to support themselves on what they get paid, fine. But why is it "socialist" or whatever you want to call it to expect that the company that profits from the person's labor should pay them enough that they don't have to have their living expenses subsidized by the rest of us? If a huge company like McDonalds (or even a small mom-and-pop company) can't afford to pay their employees enough that a full-time employee still needs to rely on government entitlement programs to survive, I would argue they shouldn't be in business at all, since their business model is clearly flawed. We're perfectly content to say "Hey, slacker, if you can't get a decent job, it's your fault--I shouldn't have to support you", but why is the reverse, "Hey, incompetant business owner, why can't you make enough money to pay your employees enough that they don't need goverment assistance?" not also true? In my view, it's the business owner who's the "leech". Hes the one relying on the rest of us to patch the holes in his crappy business plan and support his employees, but for some reason, you're making the employee the enemy for not having the wherewithall to get a better job, while the business owner is given a free pass. Like I said, I don't get it.

For the record, I fully support entitlements for people who need them.  I just get frustrated when people abuse the system.

I am a business owner and I do get to set salaries for the people I hire.  It's really no different for me than it is for you choosing who is going to fix your plumbing or put in a new countertop in the kitchen.  It's a matter of shopping around to look for qualified people and then you hire the person who is best suited to get the job done at a reasonable price.  It's not always the cheapest person, but often it is.

Now, if you're opening a business selling widgets and you have to hire a staff of 5-10 people to operate, you do exactly the same thing you do at home.  You put out a job application and see who applies for the job and ask them how much they require to come work for you.  You can absolutely set your salary at $20/hr. for cashiers to give them a livable wage as a business owner, but obviously you need to ensure that your business plan can sustain the costs.  The other part that's a challenge is when you have lets just say 50 people apply for your 10 open positions and half of them who are qualified say they'll work for $10/hr.  At that point you have a decision to make to pay them double what they're willing to work for at your businesses expense.  
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing this and think that it's awesome when people do.  The risky part comes when you do pay your employees a livable wage, but all of your competition does not.  You're selling widgets for significantly more than all of your competition, so if you don't have any differentiation between them, you will have a much harder time succeeding in business.
Sure, the government can come in and mandate everyone pay $20/hr. to "level the playing field" but if you look at the economics of it there's no advantage to that because it simply bumps up the baseline for everyone (costs and pay) so in a few years $20/hr. is no different than $10/hr. is today and the saga continues.  The only way $20/hr. is a livable wage is if the minimum wage stays at $8 (or whatever it is).

I do get a chuckle about you calling business owners a leech for hiring somebody at the rate they're willing to come work.  That's the equivalent of me calling you a leech for paying the marked price for something at the store or paying the plumber the rate he asked for.  The only difference is when you're spending your money it's ok, but when you're talking about my money (the business owner) it's different.

2015-06-04 4:52 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

Why be a douche.  I never said they should DIE.  I never said be homeless.  All I said was that the job is not worth a livable wage.  They will have to work 2 or three crappy jobs to live.    Also I didn't mention picking crops.  That is actually hard manual labor.  Cleaning houses is harder work than Mc D.  

Try not making crap up when you characterize what people say...

Maybe it is you that only hears what you want to hear...

Watch the namecalling.  

It is called a "livable wage" for a reason.  If you can't live on it......... you're going to be homeless, or unable to afford food, or unable to afford healthcare, and yes, people do die because of this.  So when you say that their job isn't worth a livable wage, you are saying that they aren't valuable enough to deserve to live.

some people don't have the skills, and will never get the skills to work a job that YOU think is worth it.  Someone has to do those jobs.  Also, you say picking crops is a livable job, why do they get paid pennies from this.  I guarantee you that YOU would not be able to make ends meet picking crops.

Anyone in this country that works a full time job, should be able to make ends meet. This is how we should base the minimum wage. End of story. It would solve the majority of our poverty and homelessness problems. Instead, companies like McDonalds make BILLIONS of dollars on the backs of employees who they abuse and take advantage of.

And you blame the employees for "not getting a better job." Shame on you.

 

So what does livable wage mean to you?  In NE where I live the minimum wage is $7.25/hr ($1160/mo).  When I look at craigslist for apartments I see a ton of apartments in the $300-$400/mo. range and several even have paid utilities.  Bus pass costs about $70/mo.
According to the USDA a thrifty food plan costs about $160/mo. for a single person to eat 3 squares a day.
With the ACA (and I believe prior to it) a person in this income range is fully eligible for Medicaid so they get free healthcare.

So, to "live" with food, shelter, medical, and transportation in Omaha, NE it costs as little as $630/mo which is well under the income generated by a true minimum wage job.

Obviously this isn't living high on the hog, but it most certainly is living.  The problem I see is that people who demand a living wage don't really want a living wage, they want a lifestyle wage that enables them to live a bigger lifestyle.  I saw a picture plastered all over facebook a few years back of McD's protesters carrying their $600 iPhones and wearing designer clothes with $150 sneakers on.  None of those things are required to "live" they're luxury items.

2015-06-04 5:01 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Why not just raise the minimum wage for people who work for companies/corporations who have a gross profit of XXX dollars?  I'm sure someone can come up with a number......how hard can this crap possibly be?  A start up business should not be required to pay a minimum wage that is the same as a billion dollar company.  Every company can have a different minimum....and people making minimum wage can aspire to get jobs in companies that make more money. (and thus pay a higher wage)

I know, I know......it's much more complicated than that. /sarc



Edited by Left Brain 2015-06-04 5:02 PM
2015-06-04 5:06 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

Why be a douche.  I never said they should DIE.  I never said be homeless.  All I said was that the job is not worth a livable wage.  They will have to work 2 or three crappy jobs to live.    Also I didn't mention picking crops.  That is actually hard manual labor.  Cleaning houses is harder work than Mc D.  

Try not making crap up when you characterize what people say...

Maybe it is you that only hears what you want to hear...

Watch the namecalling.  

It is called a "livable wage" for a reason.  If you can't live on it......... you're going to be homeless, or unable to afford food, or unable to afford healthcare, and yes, people do die because of this.  So when you say that their job isn't worth a livable wage, you are saying that they aren't valuable enough to deserve to live.

some people don't have the skills, and will never get the skills to work a job that YOU think is worth it.  Someone has to do those jobs.  Also, you say picking crops is a livable job, why do they get paid pennies from this.  I guarantee you that YOU would not be able to make ends meet picking crops.

Anyone in this country that works a full time job, should be able to make ends meet. This is how we should base the minimum wage. End of story. It would solve the majority of our poverty and homelessness problems. Instead, companies like McDonalds make BILLIONS of dollars on the backs of employees who they abuse and take advantage of.

And you blame the employees for "not getting a better job." Shame on you.

 

So what does livable wage mean to you?  In NE where I live the minimum wage is $7.25/hr ($1160/mo).  When I look at craigslist for apartments I see a ton of apartments in the $300-$400/mo. range and several even have paid utilities.  Bus pass costs about $70/mo.
According to the USDA a thrifty food plan costs about $160/mo. for a single person to eat 3 squares a day.
With the ACA (and I believe prior to it) a person in this income range is fully eligible for Medicaid so they get free healthcare.

So, to "live" with food, shelter, medical, and transportation in Omaha, NE it costs as little as $630/mo which is well under the income generated by a true minimum wage job.

Obviously this isn't living high on the hog, but it most certainly is living.  The problem I see is that people who demand a living wage don't really want a living wage, they want a lifestyle wage that enables them to live a bigger lifestyle.  I saw a picture plastered all over facebook a few years back of McD's protesters carrying their $600 iPhones and wearing designer clothes with $150 sneakers on.  None of those things are required to "live" they're luxury items.

Well I'd like to point out that you didn't account for clothing, utilities, that food plan sounds pretty optimistic.  But fine, lets say that you can swing that in Omaha Nebraska.  Well i live in DC.  300-400 a month gets you a cardboard box outside of an apartment building.  

What if you have a child, 2 children? A sick mother to take care of?

A family cannot live on that income, no matter where you live.



2015-06-04 6:52 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

"as if they have a choice"  /rollseyes

Where the heck do you live?  Are all the people you know dumb lemmings that have no choices in life other than whoever decides to hand something to them?

See, this is the part I don't get: Usually, as in this case, the same people who are opposed to the idea of companies paying people a living wage are the same ones who are opposed to the so-called "entitlement programs". If you want to say that it shouldn't fall to the taxpayers to have to support people who can't afford to support themselves on what they get paid, fine. But why is it "socialist" or whatever you want to call it to expect that the company that profits from the person's labor should pay them enough that they don't have to have their living expenses subsidized by the rest of us? If a huge company like McDonalds (or even a small mom-and-pop company) can't afford to pay their employees enough that a full-time employee still needs to rely on government entitlement programs to survive, I would argue they shouldn't be in business at all, since their business model is clearly flawed. We're perfectly content to say "Hey, slacker, if you can't get a decent job, it's your fault--I shouldn't have to support you", but why is the reverse, "Hey, incompetant business owner, why can't you make enough money to pay your employees enough that they don't need goverment assistance?" not also true? In my view, it's the business owner who's the "leech". Hes the one relying on the rest of us to patch the holes in his crappy business plan and support his employees, but for some reason, you're making the employee the enemy for not having the wherewithall to get a better job, while the business owner is given a free pass. Like I said, I don't get it.

For the record, I fully support entitlements for people who need them.  I just get frustrated when people abuse the system.

I am a business owner and I do get to set salaries for the people I hire.  It's really no different for me than it is for you choosing who is going to fix your plumbing or put in a new countertop in the kitchen.  It's a matter of shopping around to look for qualified people and then you hire the person who is best suited to get the job done at a reasonable price.  It's not always the cheapest person, but often it is.

Now, if you're opening a business selling widgets and you have to hire a staff of 5-10 people to operate, you do exactly the same thing you do at home.  You put out a job application and see who applies for the job and ask them how much they require to come work for you.  You can absolutely set your salary at $20/hr. for cashiers to give them a livable wage as a business owner, but obviously you need to ensure that your business plan can sustain the costs.  The other part that's a challenge is when you have lets just say 50 people apply for your 10 open positions and half of them who are qualified say they'll work for $10/hr.  At that point you have a decision to make to pay them double what they're willing to work for at your businesses expense.  
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing this and think that it's awesome when people do.  The risky part comes when you do pay your employees a livable wage, but all of your competition does not.  You're selling widgets for significantly more than all of your competition, so if you don't have any differentiation between them, you will have a much harder time succeeding in business.
Sure, the government can come in and mandate everyone pay $20/hr. to "level the playing field" but if you look at the economics of it there's no advantage to that because it simply bumps up the baseline for everyone (costs and pay) so in a few years $20/hr. is no different than $10/hr. is today and the saga continues.  The only way $20/hr. is a livable wage is if the minimum wage stays at $8 (or whatever it is).

I do get a chuckle about you calling business owners a leech for hiring somebody at the rate they're willing to come work.  That's the equivalent of me calling you a leech for paying the marked price for something at the store or paying the plumber the rate he asked for.  The only difference is when you're spending your money it's ok, but when you're talking about my money (the business owner) it's different.



I'm not calling the business owner a leech for paying people what they're willing to work for. I do it too. If I have the budget to pay someone $75k a year and a qualified person is willing to take $70, I'm not going to pay them more than they're asking for. The difference is, the person making $70k probably isn't going to have to get food stamps or be on welfare.

If a business owner knows perfectly well that the wage he's paying, even if its what the person is willing to accept, will force that person to go on public assistance to live, he is making you and I support his employee, but everyone's fine with that for some reason.

But if that employee decides that it's easier to collect a welfare check than it is to get a second crappy job and work seventy hours a week at two dead-end jobs instead of forty hours a week at one, the employee is the lazy good-for-nothing.
2015-06-04 7:36 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

it isn't even that the business owner is a leech.  He is just making as much money as possible, and if he can pay people 2 bucks an hour to do it he will.  Thats why we need a higher minimum wage, and social programs to take care of people.  Capitalism doesn't ask the business owner to take care of people, just wring out as much profit as possible.

also, capitalism isn't good for the individual unless you're at the very top of the heap. shocker, i know.

2015-06-04 7:54 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Extreme Veteran
799
500100100252525
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
Originally posted by dmiller5
also, capitalism isn't good for the individual unless you're at the very top of the heap. shocker, i know.




Or if you buy stuff. I personally dig how competition drives prices down.

I'm personally for the Earned Income Tax Credit. There is 0 reason I should have to pay a 17 y/o kid $15 an hour to ask if I'd like fries. If an adult is doing a job that is created for a kid they should be able to put a roof above their heads, and hopefully get some type of training to get a more skilled job. There should be some type of system in place to incentivize them to not need the Tax Credit for very long.
2015-06-04 9:17 PM
in reply to: jmcconne

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by jmcconne
Originally posted by dmiller5 also, capitalism isn't good for the individual unless you're at the very top of the heap. shocker, i know.
Or if you buy stuff. I personally dig how competition drives prices down. I'm personally for the Earned Income Tax Credit. There is 0 reason I should have to pay a 17 y/o kid $15 an hour to ask if I'd like fries. If an adult is doing a job that is created for a kid they should be able to put a roof above their heads, and hopefully get some type of training to get a more skilled job. There should be some type of system in place to incentivize them to not need the Tax Credit for very long.

i could dig a variable min. wage for minors

2015-06-04 9:22 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

Why be a douche.  I never said they should DIE.  I never said be homeless.  All I said was that the job is not worth a livable wage.  They will have to work 2 or three crappy jobs to live.    Also I didn't mention picking crops.  That is actually hard manual labor.  Cleaning houses is harder work than Mc D.  

Try not making crap up when you characterize what people say...

Maybe it is you that only hears what you want to hear...

Watch the namecalling.  

It is called a "livable wage" for a reason.  If you can't live on it......... you're going to be homeless, or unable to afford food, or unable to afford healthcare, and yes, people do die because of this.  So when you say that their job isn't worth a livable wage, you are saying that they aren't valuable enough to deserve to live.

some people don't have the skills, and will never get the skills to work a job that YOU think is worth it.  Someone has to do those jobs.  Also, you say picking crops is a livable job, why do they get paid pennies from this.  I guarantee you that YOU would not be able to make ends meet picking crops.

Anyone in this country that works a full time job, should be able to make ends meet. This is how we should base the minimum wage. End of story. It would solve the majority of our poverty and homelessness problems. Instead, companies like McDonalds make BILLIONS of dollars on the backs of employees who they abuse and take advantage of.

And you blame the employees for "not getting a better job." Shame on you.

 

Shame on you for thinking that those people can't survive without the help of everyone else.  Glad you have such high expectations for them.  

I said they may have to work multiple jobs.  Also, I didn't say that piking crops is a livable wage.  READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY.  I said it is hard work, a lot harder than Mc D.

And no, just because you work full time does not mean you deserve anything.  You earn what you deserve.  Wether that be respect or a livable wage.  Sorry that you are to closed off in your fantasy world to understand that.  Respect is earned not given.  END OF STORY as you would say.  

I'm done posting on this.  Have fun...



2015-06-05 9:22 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

"as if they have a choice"  /rollseyes

Where the heck do you live?  Are all the people you know dumb lemmings that have no choices in life other than whoever decides to hand something to them?

See, this is the part I don't get: Usually, as in this case, the same people who are opposed to the idea of companies paying people a living wage are the same ones who are opposed to the so-called "entitlement programs". If you want to say that it shouldn't fall to the taxpayers to have to support people who can't afford to support themselves on what they get paid, fine. But why is it "socialist" or whatever you want to call it to expect that the company that profits from the person's labor should pay them enough that they don't have to have their living expenses subsidized by the rest of us? If a huge company like McDonalds (or even a small mom-and-pop company) can't afford to pay their employees enough that a full-time employee still needs to rely on government entitlement programs to survive, I would argue they shouldn't be in business at all, since their business model is clearly flawed. We're perfectly content to say "Hey, slacker, if you can't get a decent job, it's your fault--I shouldn't have to support you", but why is the reverse, "Hey, incompetant business owner, why can't you make enough money to pay your employees enough that they don't need goverment assistance?" not also true? In my view, it's the business owner who's the "leech". Hes the one relying on the rest of us to patch the holes in his crappy business plan and support his employees, but for some reason, you're making the employee the enemy for not having the wherewithall to get a better job, while the business owner is given a free pass. Like I said, I don't get it.

For the record, I fully support entitlements for people who need them.  I just get frustrated when people abuse the system.

I am a business owner and I do get to set salaries for the people I hire.  It's really no different for me than it is for you choosing who is going to fix your plumbing or put in a new countertop in the kitchen.  It's a matter of shopping around to look for qualified people and then you hire the person who is best suited to get the job done at a reasonable price.  It's not always the cheapest person, but often it is.

Now, if you're opening a business selling widgets and you have to hire a staff of 5-10 people to operate, you do exactly the same thing you do at home.  You put out a job application and see who applies for the job and ask them how much they require to come work for you.  You can absolutely set your salary at $20/hr. for cashiers to give them a livable wage as a business owner, but obviously you need to ensure that your business plan can sustain the costs.  The other part that's a challenge is when you have lets just say 50 people apply for your 10 open positions and half of them who are qualified say they'll work for $10/hr.  At that point you have a decision to make to pay them double what they're willing to work for at your businesses expense.  
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing this and think that it's awesome when people do.  The risky part comes when you do pay your employees a livable wage, but all of your competition does not.  You're selling widgets for significantly more than all of your competition, so if you don't have any differentiation between them, you will have a much harder time succeeding in business.
Sure, the government can come in and mandate everyone pay $20/hr. to "level the playing field" but if you look at the economics of it there's no advantage to that because it simply bumps up the baseline for everyone (costs and pay) so in a few years $20/hr. is no different than $10/hr. is today and the saga continues.  The only way $20/hr. is a livable wage is if the minimum wage stays at $8 (or whatever it is).

I do get a chuckle about you calling business owners a leech for hiring somebody at the rate they're willing to come work.  That's the equivalent of me calling you a leech for paying the marked price for something at the store or paying the plumber the rate he asked for.  The only difference is when you're spending your money it's ok, but when you're talking about my money (the business owner) it's different.

I'm not calling the business owner a leech for paying people what they're willing to work for. I do it too. If I have the budget to pay someone $75k a year and a qualified person is willing to take $70, I'm not going to pay them more than they're asking for. The difference is, the person making $70k probably isn't going to have to get food stamps or be on welfare. If a business owner knows perfectly well that the wage he's paying, even if its what the person is willing to accept, will force that person to go on public assistance to live, he is making you and I support his employee, but everyone's fine with that for some reason. But if that employee decides that it's easier to collect a welfare check than it is to get a second crappy job and work seventy hours a week at two dead-end jobs instead of forty hours a week at one, the employee is the lazy good-for-nothing.

I still am trying to reconcile why I as a business owner should have to be the "social status" police and pay people a more than they're willing to work for.
One real example I'm thinking of is I had a friend of mine who wanted to earn some extra money.  He asked me if he could clean my office and said he'd do it for $50/week.  Based on the hours he worked, he was likely making $8 an hour, but I felt as though I was doing him a favor and he was very happy to make the extra money.  win/win type of situation.  I wasn't even looking for a person, he came to me and sold me on it.
I just can't see how the conversation would have gone or where I have some social responsibility to say.  No, you can't do it for $50, I will only do it if you let me pay you $100/week.  That's just weird.

I think the minimum wage or livable wage (new marketing) argument is kind of silly because it's just like the ACA.  It makes people feel better, but it doesn't fix anything.  Raise the minimum wage to $15, $20, $30, or even $50 an hour and I guarantee you that we'll be arguing the same thing in 5 years about how the poor can't get ahead.  It's not their minimum wage that's the problem and will never be.

2015-06-05 11:31 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by chirunner134  Do not forget if people chose a job where they would get paid a living wage there would not way less of a need for government help.

Fixed it for you.  The job you take is a choice you make.  

Are you saying the job you can get is always a choice? Not really. Many cases you take what you can get. I took a job once because only one I could get in my field. I had to move cross country for the temp job which only lasted 2.5 months when it was suppose to last a 1 year+. Thanks congress for that. Lucky when the job got funded again I had a job back in Chicago area where I am from. Then I did not have to move back to Maryland just to have employment. The job Also was also not good because I went for a java programming job and found out it was PL/SQL only programming job after I walked into the door but at that time it was too late. If I knew it was a PL/SQL job I would not have bothered to move. In the 3 months I had between the Maryland temp job and the part time programming job I got I had 3 or 4 interviews that I got with several staffing agencies. Biggest issue I had after I came back was even though I had 3 years experience with Object Orientated programming languages since my last job was PL/SQL developer I was being sent on a PL/SQL programmer interviews. Staffing Agencies told me I could only be sent on those interviews because that was my last job even though that is not my strength or area of expertise and only had 2.5 months of experience.

What I'm saying is that a job should pay what the position is worth.  If you choose to take a job that pays a non-livable wage, (even if you have to take it to pay the bills), is not a valid reason to think that it should pay more.

And, NOT ALL JOBS should be considered a career.  I.e. should not pay a livable wage.  Working at Mc D should not pay enough to live off of.  Maybe Ihop, but that would be stretching it.  Olive Garden maybe.  

Unfortunately most people who do not understand this theory, also don't have jobs that pay a livable wage.

Maybe if you can't find a job in your field that pays a livable wage, you may have chosen the wrong field.  If there are no jobs, you may have chosen the wrong field.  

 

So you think that all the people who work at McDonalds, or pick crops, or clean houses shouldn't be paid a livable wage? So what are they supposed to do? 

Just be homeless or not eat?  They should die because they "picked the wrong field" (as if they have a choice)

Not everyone can be a lawyer or a mechanic or an engineer.  We need people that serve our food, pick up garbage, and do a litany of other tasks that you probably think "don't deserve a living wage"

"as if they have a choice"  /rollseyes

Where the heck do you live?  Are all the people you know dumb lemmings that have no choices in life other than whoever decides to hand something to them?

See, this is the part I don't get: Usually, as in this case, the same people who are opposed to the idea of companies paying people a living wage are the same ones who are opposed to the so-called "entitlement programs". If you want to say that it shouldn't fall to the taxpayers to have to support people who can't afford to support themselves on what they get paid, fine. But why is it "socialist" or whatever you want to call it to expect that the company that profits from the person's labor should pay them enough that they don't have to have their living expenses subsidized by the rest of us? If a huge company like McDonalds (or even a small mom-and-pop company) can't afford to pay their employees enough that a full-time employee still needs to rely on government entitlement programs to survive, I would argue they shouldn't be in business at all, since their business model is clearly flawed. We're perfectly content to say "Hey, slacker, if you can't get a decent job, it's your fault--I shouldn't have to support you", but why is the reverse, "Hey, incompetant business owner, why can't you make enough money to pay your employees enough that they don't need goverment assistance?" not also true? In my view, it's the business owner who's the "leech". Hes the one relying on the rest of us to patch the holes in his crappy business plan and support his employees, but for some reason, you're making the employee the enemy for not having the wherewithall to get a better job, while the business owner is given a free pass. Like I said, I don't get it.

For the record, I fully support entitlements for people who need them.  I just get frustrated when people abuse the system.

I am a business owner and I do get to set salaries for the people I hire.  It's really no different for me than it is for you choosing who is going to fix your plumbing or put in a new countertop in the kitchen.  It's a matter of shopping around to look for qualified people and then you hire the person who is best suited to get the job done at a reasonable price.  It's not always the cheapest person, but often it is.

Now, if you're opening a business selling widgets and you have to hire a staff of 5-10 people to operate, you do exactly the same thing you do at home.  You put out a job application and see who applies for the job and ask them how much they require to come work for you.  You can absolutely set your salary at $20/hr. for cashiers to give them a livable wage as a business owner, but obviously you need to ensure that your business plan can sustain the costs.  The other part that's a challenge is when you have lets just say 50 people apply for your 10 open positions and half of them who are qualified say they'll work for $10/hr.  At that point you have a decision to make to pay them double what they're willing to work for at your businesses expense.  
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing this and think that it's awesome when people do.  The risky part comes when you do pay your employees a livable wage, but all of your competition does not.  You're selling widgets for significantly more than all of your competition, so if you don't have any differentiation between them, you will have a much harder time succeeding in business.
Sure, the government can come in and mandate everyone pay $20/hr. to "level the playing field" but if you look at the economics of it there's no advantage to that because it simply bumps up the baseline for everyone (costs and pay) so in a few years $20/hr. is no different than $10/hr. is today and the saga continues.  The only way $20/hr. is a livable wage is if the minimum wage stays at $8 (or whatever it is).

I do get a chuckle about you calling business owners a leech for hiring somebody at the rate they're willing to come work.  That's the equivalent of me calling you a leech for paying the marked price for something at the store or paying the plumber the rate he asked for.  The only difference is when you're spending your money it's ok, but when you're talking about my money (the business owner) it's different.

I'm not calling the business owner a leech for paying people what they're willing to work for. I do it too. If I have the budget to pay someone $75k a year and a qualified person is willing to take $70, I'm not going to pay them more than they're asking for. The difference is, the person making $70k probably isn't going to have to get food stamps or be on welfare. If a business owner knows perfectly well that the wage he's paying, even if its what the person is willing to accept, will force that person to go on public assistance to live, he is making you and I support his employee, but everyone's fine with that for some reason. But if that employee decides that it's easier to collect a welfare check than it is to get a second crappy job and work seventy hours a week at two dead-end jobs instead of forty hours a week at one, the employee is the lazy good-for-nothing.

I still am trying to reconcile why I as a business owner should have to be the "social status" police and pay people a more than they're willing to work for.
One real example I'm thinking of is I had a friend of mine who wanted to earn some extra money.  He asked me if he could clean my office and said he'd do it for $50/week.  Based on the hours he worked, he was likely making $8 an hour, but I felt as though I was doing him a favor and he was very happy to make the extra money.  win/win type of situation.  I wasn't even looking for a person, he came to me and sold me on it.
I just can't see how the conversation would have gone or where I have some social responsibility to say.  No, you can't do it for $50, I will only do it if you let me pay you $100/week.  That's just weird.

I think the minimum wage or livable wage (new marketing) argument is kind of silly because it's just like the ACA.  It makes people feel better, but it doesn't fix anything.  Raise the minimum wage to $15, $20, $30, or even $50 an hour and I guarantee you that we'll be arguing the same thing in 5 years about how the poor can't get ahead.  It's not their minimum wage that's the problem and will never be.


You don't "have" to do anything. You paid him minimum wage, and it was a temporary gig. I'm just saying that people who exploit poor people's desperation to take whatever job they can get at whatever salary someone will pay, shouldn't also get to complain how lazy poor people are.
2015-06-05 6:04 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
Never ceases to amaze me how generous people are with other people's money.

2015-06-08 11:05 AM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
tupuppy, Just because someone says $50 does not mean you can't always pay them more. Not to say you have too just saying nothing to stop you. I helped a co workers of mine like 13 years ago setup his home network. I offered him $12 and he said sorry that is too low how about $25 an hour. I made an extra $40 from him that weekend. Even at $25 it was a steal for him but he wanted to do the right thing. I might be off on the actual numbers since it was 13 years ago but I know he turned down my offer and offered me more.

2015-06-08 11:15 AM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by chirunner134 tupuppy, Just because someone says $50 does not mean you can't always pay them more. Not to say you have too just saying nothing to stop you. I helped a co workers of mine like 13 years ago setup his home network. I offered him $12 and he said sorry that is too low how about $25 an hour. I made an extra $40 from him that weekend. Even at $25 it was a steal for him but he wanted to do the right thing. I might be off on the actual numbers since it was 13 years ago but I know he turned down my offer and offered me more.

For sure, and I've done the same for various reasons over the years.  I remember I hired a guy years ago who only wanted $50k for a salary.  I knew how good he was and I knew that he could leave and get a lot more money, so I offered him $70k.  It wasn't a social justice thing, it was a retention thing because it knew he'd likely leave within a year if I didn't.



2015-06-09 10:50 AM
in reply to: NXS

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
But it's not other people's money-- it's your money. Because Wal-Mart and McDonalds choose to pay their employees so little, you have to pick up the tab for their food stamps or welfare or whatever.

My point is that we get upset at the employees for collecting from government programs (to which they're entitled under the law) but we're fine with these companies creating the conditions where you and I have to subsidize their employees while they reap the benefits.

It seems hypocritical to me.



2015-06-11 11:38 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
listening to Ann Coulter speak this morning and even she was complaining about using low paid immigrant labor and then subsidize them with social programs.
2015-06-17 7:57 AM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance
In 15 years of signing paychecks, I have realized the axiom that the highest paid employees in a company are the most underpaid and the lowest paid employees are the most overpaid.

For example, my key employees are worth their weight in gold. Without them, my company probably wouldn't survive. My $10 per hour college student doing filing and other office task cost me about $100 a day and doesn't bring a dime of value into the company. If I had to pay her a living wage, she wouldn't be here.



2015-06-17 9:35 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA and You can keep your health insurance

Originally posted by Jackemy1 In 15 years of signing paychecks, I have realized the axiom that the highest paid employees in a company are the most underpaid and the lowest paid employees are the most overpaid. For example, my key employees are worth their weight in gold. Without them, my company probably wouldn't survive. My $10 per hour college student doing filing and other office task cost me about $100 a day and doesn't bring a dime of value into the company. If I had to pay her a living wage, she wouldn't be here.

cool story bro?

This isn't just about their value to YOU. It is about their value as human beings.

Also, maybe if we paid that college student a living wage she wouldn't have to graduate with $50,000 in loans at 14% interest.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » ACA and You can keep your health insurance Rss Feed  
 
 
of 5
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Regulation to cancel insurance policies wasn't in the ACA?

Started by tuwood
Views: 2455 Posts: 15

2013-11-26 5:47 PM tuwood

The ACA has revealed ignorance about...

Started by pga_mike
Views: 2371 Posts: 23

2013-10-09 9:17 AM Jackemy1

The ACA started with "Conservatives"?

Started by pga_mike
Views: 1736 Posts: 11

2013-10-04 1:26 PM kevin_trapp

ACA fun begins on Oct 1 (mines beginning already) Pages: 1 2 3 4

Started by tuwood
Views: 9287 Posts: 90

2013-11-10 7:50 AM NXS

ACA Employer Mandate Pushed to 2015

Started by Aarondb4
Views: 1307 Posts: 4

2013-07-08 9:20 AM tuwood
RELATED ARTICLES
date : March 24, 2015
author : BradSeng
comments : 0
While running, I've been really struggling to keep my heart rate down in the zone 2-3 range as frequently prescribed in the plan. This seems too slow?
 
date : May 19, 2010
author : Team BT
comments : 1
Use this redesigned feature of your training logs to keep track of your time and mileage on all of your gear including shoes, bikes, tires, clothes, etc.
date : February 7, 2008
author : Tri Swim Coach
comments : 4
Is it good to listen to music while lap swimming? Are there any devices to help you keep track of your laps?
 
date : December 17, 2007
author : Diane1961
comments : 2
The Monday after the race, I go to my health club for my first Pilates class in six years. I look like the fittest person here. Fortunately, I don’t mention to anyone that I’m a triathlete.
date : December 11, 2007
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 1
Searching for the perfect gift for a friend, relative, or teammate? Here's a list of winning book suggestions for active people.
 
date : August 17, 2007
author : scoli121
comments : 6
I quickly browsed an article in Men's Health that talked about doing a triathlon, and how it wasn't really that hard. With a "tsk!" I quickly turned the page while thinking, "Yeah, right!"
date : July 10, 2007
author : mars
comments : 5
The journey of an average Joe entering the triathlon world. I was 35 pounds overweight and out of shape. Enough was enough, and it was time for me to take back my health and my body.
 
date : September 4, 2006
author : Tri Swim Coach
comments : 0
Discussions on leg dragging, swimming with fins, body rotation, keeping the elbow up, kicking benefits and stroke length.