- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The idea anyone is entitled to a "livable wage" is Ludacris
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:13 am to stuckintexas
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:13 am to stuckintexas
quote:
You make it out like it's impossible because you couldn't do it. No wonder you're arguing for this ridiculous proposition. Nobody said it was easy. Maybe you just don't have the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done.
It’s literally impossible to do a software program training to become a full stack software engineer for 8 hours a day that requires 4 hours a day of studying, while doing a full time job. Literally impossible. The only way I got through what I got through was because I’ve been saving since I was 13 years old. And, I can guarantee you software is harder than whatever it is you did, and the entry level jobs pay more. Obviously I could’ve pulled off a 2 hour/day trade school. They are not all that light. On to your next dumb point:
quote:
I worked and paid my portion of the bills, car payment, car insurance, gas and food. Tuition and books were dirt cheap, like $500/semester. I
I’m so inspired by your touching story of pulling yourself up by your boot straps. Did no one tell you that times have changed? $500/semester… lol. Can’t expect people to do the same thing you did when they have entirely different circumstances. Ridiculous point.
quote:
Your argument that a job is worth a "livable wage" because that job will always be there is ridiculous, as well. The idea that someone should be able to fully support themselves in an entry-level or no/low-skill positions does nothing but inflate the problem
This makes absolutely no sense. There will always be someone to fill that job, and you’re saying they don’t deserve a livable wage. So whoever fills that job will always be homeless. Another ridiculous point.
quote:
And who sets that parameter? Does that mean being able to pay a mortgage, raise the typical 2.5 kids, have brand new cars, the latest cell phone, starbucks twice a day?
I specifically said livable is different from desirable. And I literally said that they shouldn’t be buying a brand new car. I’m talking about a basic person without a family and is financially responsible. Those people need a livable wage. Other self-induced circumstances, that’s on them.
quote:
Pay attention, start learning, pay attention in the apprenticeship program I put you in and pay for, and take the next step. I'll always need someone to sweep. If someone wants to stay in that position for their entire life, that's their choice. It's not my responsibility to compensate that employee for more than what that job is worth simply because that job doesn't pay all their bills. Period.
Cool, so while they’re learning skills, they just have to live on the street. Got it.
This post was edited on 4/3/24 at 10:16 am
2
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:15 am to TN Tygah
quote:
This makes absolutely no sense. There will always be someone to fill that job, and you’re saying they don’t deserve a livable wage. So whoever fills that job will always be homeless. Another ridiculous point.
So in places where minimum wage isn’t “livable” you believe all the employees are homeless?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:24 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
There will always be someone to fill that job,
The interesting thing about this comment is he doesnt realize why these jobs have little value, and its for this very reason.
Any skills, education, and certifications will keep you from competing with 10th grade dropouts who just got released from prison.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:29 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
So in places where minimum wage isn’t “livable” you believe all the employees are homeless?
That is literally what livable means. If you are not homeless and are able to comfortably pay all your bills and have essentials taken care of, that is livable. I don’t define livable as affording a brand new car, $1000 iphone, and popping out kids you can’t afford. I specifically made a distinction between livable and desirable and pointed out that libs often confuse the two.
I don’t even know why this is even a question at this point.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:30 am to TN Tygah
quote:
That is literally what livable means. If you are not homeless and are able to comfortably pay all your bills
When did the min wage provide this? Yall are dreamers. Not living in reality.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:34 am to TN Tygah
quote:
That is literally what livable means. If you are not homeless and are able to comfortably pay all your bills and have essentials taken care of, that is livable.
This will vary greatly, person to person and by location. In my son’s college town a single person can easily live in a shared apartment and pay rent/utilities/food for under $1000 a month. Some people could do that cheaper by sharing a room.
Most employed people are not homeless, so it just be assumed most wages are already “liveable”.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:46 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
When did the min wage provide this? Yall are dreamers. Not living in reality.
Are you saying that minimum wage never provided the ability to not be homeless? Anyway, in the 1960s-early 70s, you could have a family of 3 and still live above the poverty line, so you’re wrong about that. This was followed by a gradual decline. I don’t think you know what “reality” is.
It’s irrelevant whether it’s been livable or not since then. You don’t just say, “well it hasn’t been livable since the 80s so why start now?” That’s not the question. The issue is whether a minimum wage worker should be able to support themselves, with the hope that they do try to better their lives with a trade school (and not a gender studies degree) and don’t make stupid decisions (like 100k in student loans). Someone will always have those minimum wage jobs. Always.
And there seems to be some confusion over how much a person’s work is “worth.” That is subjective and fluid. Your prices decide that. This is an extreme example, but if you can only afford to pay a worker one dollar an hour, that doesn’t mean the work he’s doing is only worth one dollar an hour objectively. It means your prices suck and you’re bad at running a business.
I’m not a commie. I had a skill and got my first job at 13, my old man drilled into my head the importance of saving and living within my means, and I had 30 grand saved up by the time I went to college. I got a full ride. But I also had a skill and didn’t need any training to start out. 99% of people don’t have that.
This post was edited on 4/3/24 at 10:47 am
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:49 am to TN Tygah
quote:
It’s literally impossible to do a software program for 8 hours a day that requires 4 hours a day of studying, while doing a full time job. Literally impossible. And, I can guarantee you it’s harder than whatever it is you did
K. Go ahead and calculate the main service size for a 6-building, 240 unit apartment complex. After you do that, calculate the manpower and resources you'll need for a 400-acre wildfire with the closest water supply being 10 miles away while maintaining a constant flow of 2,000 gallons a minute. After that, list all the possible reasons you might find a 55 YO male patient unconscious and what you'd need to do to diagnose and treat him. Then get back to me with writing code being so much harder. You think I didn't have to study?
quote:
I’m so inspired by your touching story of pulling yourself up by your boot straps
Then hopefully you'll give that software gig another shot.
quote:
Can’t expect people to do the same thing you did when they have entirely different circumstances
How do you know people have entirely different circumstances? I bet you're the kind of person that says, "must be nice," when you see someone with something you don't have. Don't bother with all the hard work and sacrifice it took that person to get there, just sit in your comfort zone behind your limiting beliefs and look for a handout.
quote:
This makes absolutely no sense. There will always be someone to fill that job, and you’re saying they don’t deserve a livable wage. So whoever fills that job will always be homeless
No wonder you couldn't pass a programmer class because even simple concepts are over your head. I have a lot of employees. Not a single one is homeless. I actually hired a guy that was living in his car for a few weeks after moving to Texas. He had an apartment in a couple of weeks.
quote:
I specifically said livable is different from desirable
Again, one person's livable is another person's desirable. What is "financially responsibe" in your definition?
quote:
Cool, so while they’re learning skills, they just have to live on the street. Got it.
So, in your opinion, the options are either A) Be able to fully support yourself on minimum wage, or B) Be homeless.
Hey, when you start your own business, let me know. I'll come to work for you. I'll take $20/hr, but you'll pay me while I'm being trained and you'll pay for the training classes. I want full health/vision/dental/life/supplemental insurance, retirement, paid holidays, two weeks paid vacation, company phone, company computer, and a take home vehicle. You pay for all fuel, insurance, and maintenance on the company vehicle. That's livable for me. Oh, and I plan on never advancing beyond whatever entry level position you've trained me for.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:53 am to TN Tygah
quote:
Are you saying that minimum wage never provided the ability to not be homeless? Anyway, in the 1960s-early 70s, you could have a family of 3 and still live above the poverty line, so you’re wrong about that.
The fed minimum wage in 1969 equates to $13.29 in 2023 dollars. That wage gave you $3330 a year income, and the average income back then was $8550. Can you show your proof that minimum wage earners were comfortable supporting 3 people on one minimum wage income back then?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:07 am to TN Tygah
quote:
Are you saying that minimum wage never provided the ability to not be homeless? Anyway, in the 1960s-early 70s, you could have a family of 3 and still live above the poverty line,
By a quick check, a person living on min wage in 1970 lived below the poverty line.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:08 am to TN Tygah
quote:
but if you can only afford to pay a worker one dollar an hour, that doesn’t mean the work he’s doing is only worth one dollar an hour objectively.
If he does less, fire him. If he does way more, promote him.
Thats how you keep from living on min wage.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:46 am to TN Tygah
quote:
This is assuming livable wage means, something that keeps you from being homeless.
The list of things people SHOULD be willing to give up and do to adjust their lifestyle/expenses before being homeless is massive...but instead they don't want to give up all those comforts. Then they expect magically a wage should be created so they can live comfortably according to their own standard.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:50 am to sidewalkside
quote:
Why do people think a private business must offer a "livable wage" to anyone? Why is it the obligation of the business to pay a "livable wage" to anyone?
Businesses and employees should be allowed to come to any sort of term they think is best for both parties. When those terms do not pay for the employees production and the state has to step in because the rest of us like nice things like sewers and running water the state should tax the business owner exactly what their employee has received from the state to repay the tax payer. Societal demands drive up the cost of living...things like zoning ordinances, running water, building codes. The cost of production, in its entirety, must come from the revenue of a business. There ain't no free lunch. Low wage employers are also tax payers. They, for some irrational reason, think it is preferable to pay their employees less than it costs their employees to produce and then pay state and federal revenue agencies some sum that goes to those employees in the form of social welfare programs. The problem is the employer does not foot that tax burden alone, the rest of us subsidize his production costs. Call it a living wage, Aunt Suzy, whatever you like, but there is a certain cost associated with living in a reasonable commuting distance from a place of employment. Those costs have to come from somewhere. Currently they come from low wage employers and tax payers. It'd be far better if we insisted those costs are the employers and only the employers.
quote:
Instead I contend it should be the obligation of the individual to either adjust their spending/consumption/ expenses to the wage they are earning or instead...how about learn a new skill...learn a new trade...obtain a higher education and find a job paying a higher wage that fits their lifestyle.
This argument has been made time and again but it does not address the fact that many businesses rely on a business model where they foot the bill for their employees production in part and rely on taxpayers to foot what ever the employer does not foot. It makes no difference what education or skill or drive an employee has possesses, it is about a business model where wages do not pay, in total, what it costs an employee with no skill, no education and no drive to produce for a low wage employer.
Folks are tore up over people living under overpasses in this country. Housing is expensive. To be gainfully employed it is necessary to have a place to live that is acceptable to the community in question. If you need a tractor for your business to be viable you will provide a place to store it when not in use, you will provide for its fuel, maintenance and transportation. At the lowest outlook of low wage employees there is no difference between them and a tractor...if you need either for your business to be successful YOU should foot the bill for the entire cost of that...and manage your business in a manner which allows you to pass the cost onto customers.
The vast majority of employers in the United States does exactly this...they pay the entire cost of their employees production out of their revenue. Low wage employees rely on everybody, customer or not, to defray their production costs.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:03 pm to saint tiger225
quote:
I agree. I think it's a combo of the extreme left politics of places like Cali and the cost of living as well.
Sad to see people don't want to better themselves though. I've always thought jobs like that should be something more for highschool and college kids, unless you're someone running it.
It has nothing to do with someone wanting to better themselves or not. The business model of low wage employers relies on subsidies from taxpayers to their employees to remain viable. There is no free lunch, regardless of whether or not a person wants to better themselves.
If you own a business that requires a tractor in order for your business to be viable you will be fully expected to pay for the cost of that tractors production from the revenue of your business. You will provide storage for that tractor when it is not being used. You will provide fuel for that tractor. You will provide maintenance for that tractor. You will, by necessity, pass the entirety of those costs onto your customers.
In the United States IF your business relies on labor to be viable you can decide to simply refuse to pay for a large amount of those costs and the taxpayers will subsidize your business because we like nice things like running water and sewers. It would be FAR better if the employee earned their entire cost of living and the employer managed their business in a manner that REQUIRED them to recover those costs from actual customers.
There is no free lunch, someone has to pay. If a business requires labor to be viable the business should be expected to pay for the entirety of the lunch.
If we truly are addicted to low wage employers paying low wages we are going to have to consider reducing our expectations for nice things like decent housing, sewers, police and fire protection, a viable military....all manner of shite that costs a heaping pile of money. We will have to have some housing that is affordable so we will have to stop looking down our noses at people living in tents under overpasses. Folks are going to frick and have babies so we will have to adjust our expectations and allow those babies to run amuk in the streets like kids did in the 19th century. We will have to grow to accept folks shitting in the gutters, pissing wherever their bladder gets full...it will be great....all so a McDonald's Franchisee can live a lavish lifestyle and sell big macs cheaper. There ain't no free lunch...if we expect people to live a certain way, in a structure and with plumbing etc, there is a cost associated with those expectations.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:04 pm to sidewalkside
Ludacris
--lern ta spel
--lern ta spel
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:06 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
It has nothing to do with someone wanting to better themselves or not. The business model of low wage employers relies on subsidies from taxpayers to their employees to remain viable. There is no free lunch, regardless of whether or not a person wants to better themselves.
If you own a business that requires a tractor in order for your business to be viable you will be fully expected to pay for the cost of that tractors production from the revenue of your business. You will provide storage for that tractor when it is not being used. You will provide fuel for that tractor. You will provide maintenance for that tractor. You will, by necessity, pass the entirety of those costs onto your customers.
In the United States IF your business relies on labor to be viable you can decide to simply refuse to pay for a large amount of those costs and the taxpayers will subsidize your business because we like nice things like running water and sewers. It would be FAR better if the employee earned their entire cost of living and the employer managed their business in a manner that REQUIRED them to recover those costs from actual customers.
There is no free lunch, someone has to pay. If a business requires labor to be viable the business should be expected to pay for the entirety of the lunch.
well said. I dont know why some people are happy with subsidizing these companies
If I started a lawnmowing business and said I wanna charge people $20 to mow their yards but that was only possible If I could pay my employees $4 an hour and TigerDroppings picked up the tab for their rent/food costs, everyone would think it was asinine and that I need to charge more than $20 per yard. But when the government takes your money and uses it to subsidize walmart/mcdonalds employees so that they can charge less for a Big Mac they are fine with it for some reason
This post was edited on 4/3/24 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:09 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
I dont know why some people are happy with subsidizing these companies
I'll subsidize a company providing jobs 100 times out of 100 over subsidizing worthless bums sitting home collecting a check.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:09 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
When those terms do not pay for the employees production and the state has to step in because the rest of us like nice things like sewers and running water the state should tax the business owner exactly what their employee has received from the state to repay the tax payer. Societal demands drive up the cost of living...things like zoning ordinances, running water, building codes. The cost of production, in its entirety, must come from the revenue of a business. There ain't no free lunch
quote:
If you need a tractor for your business to be viable you will provide a place to store it when not in use, you will provide for its fuel, maintenance and transportation. At the lowest outlook of low wage employees there is no difference between them and a tractor...if you need either for your business to be successful YOU should foot the bill for the entire cost of that...and manage your business in a manner which allows you to pass the cost onto customers.
So... slavery. Spoken like someone who has never owned or operated a business. I provide plenty of opportunities to employees, and a TON of benefits as a choice. I foot the bill for all of that. If a lower paid employee chooses to buy starbucks/beer/cigarettes/scratchoffs every day and can't afford his utility bill, thats not my problem. By your example, breakfast and lunch should be provided every day. Underwear, socks, pants, and boots should be provided in addition to uniform shirts and PPE. Company cards for gas to and from work.
There's a thing called personal responsibility. I don't control what employees choose to do on their own time, how they spend their money, or how they live their life.
I already pay a shite ton in taxes and insurance. Income tax, payroll taxes, commercial and private property taxes, franchise tax, general liability insurance, umbrella insurance, workers comp insurance, commercial auto insurance, 50% of health/vision/dental/life/supplemental insurance for employees, matching 401k investments. Now you want to just point the finger at me for their circumstances and say they're my fault? GTFO
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:25 pm to sidewalkside
Correct not all and in fact most entry level jobs are not set up to produce that kind of revenue for the employer, there for not for the employee to live on.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:36 pm to stuckintexas
quote:
I already pay a shite ton in taxes and insurance. Income tax, payroll taxes, commercial and private property taxes, franchise tax, general liability insurance, umbrella insurance, workers comp insurance, commercial auto insurance, 50% of health/vision/dental/life/supplemental insurance for employees, matching 401k investments. Now you want to just point the finger at me for their circumstances and say they're my fault? GTFO
Apparently he expects you to do what the farmers are doing with their illegals around here; Provide housing.
Page 13 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News