Bulldrek v3.0

So Kerry would like to see the minimum wage bumped up. I think this is a good thing, as trying to live on minimum wage is a bitch. Some people I've spoken to think this'll ruin the economy. What do you all think?

It's a tricky issue. It's true that one cannot survive on minimum wage alone; but raising it tends to hurt small businesses, who have a harder time affording it. Even restricting it to bigger businesses will hurt the Mom-and-Pop level, since they'll have to raise wages to compete for employees. Granted, in the current job market, it may not be such a bad idea; but it'll definitely slow down job development on the low end.

Personally, i'd like to see a minimal increase-- maybe 5 cents an hour or so, enough to try and compensate for cost-of-living increases. But a bigger one is likely to hurt.

I think it's needed. Maybe not too substantial of a raise, but in the $5.50 - $6.00 region would help. A man in the country can't even support a family on a minimum wage job without falling below the poverty line. That should say something right there.

Yeah. I should say something about the man working a minimum wage job. I haven't worked a minimum wage job since I was 14. If a full grown man can't do any better, he's having a big problem adjusting to life and needs to give some serious thought to the opportunities available with a career in dying.

I disagree, an increase in Mimimum Wage is a bad idea.

Certainly, you most likely cannot live off minimum wage (it's possible, but highly unlikely and basically hand-to-mouth, week-to-week living). But most minimum wage jobs are for people who don't need to live off it.

Frankly, and this is possibly wrong of me, but no one on minimum wage really has any business trying to support a family. I know that it happens, and everyone goes through hard times, and sometimes accidents happen--like Mom and Dad dying and little Jessy trying to support her elderly grandfather and three siblings--but there are other social agencies set up to help hard-luck cases, and raising minimum wage as a whole isn't doing anyone any favors.

ak404 wrote:So Kerry would like to see the minimum wage bumped up. I think this is a good thing, as trying to live on minimum wage is a bitch. Some people I've spoken to think this'll ruin the economy. What do you all think?

Ruin the economy? What. The. Fuck.

The US accounts for 26% of the production in the entire world. Raising the minimum wage would crush that? Bollocks. If a piss poor economy like Australia or Norway (comparatively) can afford to give people a decent minimum wage and standard of living, surely the richest and most powerful nation on the planet can do the same or better for its own people.

26% population for the entire world. That sounds wrong.

By the way, I believe that minimum wages is good, but only to certain limit. Also, there is other thing, if we raise them, we run risk of making it more profitable for companies to outsource....hmmm....Yet, at the same time, raising minimum wages will allow customers to have more buying power....aaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Raising the minimum wage does /not/ increase buying power.

Yeah. I should say something about the man working a minimum wage job. I haven't worked a minimum wage job since I was 14. If a full grown man can't do any better, he's having a big problem adjusting to life and needs to give some serious thought to the opportunities available with a career in dying.

Or he's been hit by a crappy economy with poor job development, and doesn't have anything better to do.

Frankly, and this is possibly wrong of me, but no one on minimum wage really has any business trying to support a family. I know that it happens, and everyone goes through hard times, and sometimes accidents happen--like Mom and Dad dying and little Jessy trying to support her elderly grandfather and three siblings--but there are other social agencies set up to help hard-luck cases, and raising minimum wage as a whole isn't doing anyone any favors.

The social agencies are usually underfunded, and some demand that you work any job you can. So, we end up with people trapped in minimum-wage jobs for years-- with extra support, but generally not really enough to do more than maybe scrape by. One or two major medical bills, and they're sunk again.

Raising the minimum wage generally does lead to an increase in wages overall, which is both a good and bad thing. Businesses, especially small businesses, suddenly have to pay more in salaries. But on the other hand, more of that money is in consumer hands, where it's more likely to circulate.

Raising the minimum wage does /not/ increase buying power.

This is untrue. It does put more money in the hands of the poorest consumer, who's least likely to save and most likely to spend. This leads to increased circulation of money, which in turn leads to lower costs for everyone. You may be referring to the possibility of inflation, which *can* occur, but is not likely on this small of a scale.

There's a lot of good reasons to not raise the minimum wage, but those aren't among them.

Personally, I think Kerry's trying to motivate the left, since this is one of their hot-button issues. It's not a straightforward issue by any means, but it makes for a great campaign promise, and works well as a sound bite.

I was indeed referring to inflation, which I think more likely if an increase in minimum wage occurs. And if inflation does occur, than the increased amount of money available to workers of minimum-wage jobs may not increase their actual buying power (i.e. if prices go up too, then the worker is no better off).

Johnny the Bull wrote:If a piss poor economy like Australia or Norway (comparatively) can afford to give people a decent minimum wage and standard of living, surely the richest and most powerful nation on the planet can do the same or better for its own people.

Unless, of course, the source of the richness is in paying such low wages. Which it, at least partially, is. America has a 200+ year history of being an industrial powerhouse by taking the least-skilled approach to labor.

FlameBlade wrote:26% population for the entire world. That sounds wrong.

It should, particularly since China and India have, like 33 percent. But he said "production," not "population."

_
Personally, I think the minimum wage should match the poverty level, whatever else happens. The idea that people can be paid less than the lowest amount we say is possible to live on is ridiculous. [But so is the way we currently calculate poverty.]

Anyone who says it's impossible to live on minimum wage is wrong.

I was indeed referring to inflation, which I think more likely if an increase in minimum wage occurs. And if inflation does occur, than the increased amount of money available to workers of minimum-wage jobs may not increase their actual buying power (i.e. if prices go up too, then the worker is no better off).

I see what you're getting at, and you're sorta right. Generally, an increase in the minimum wage is a response to inflation, and not the other way around. And by itself, it won't lead to much of an increase in inflation-- generally, the opposite is true, as more is being bought and prices are allowed to stabilize. What happens is that generally wages for everyone else rises right alongside of it, and *that* can cause inflation rather rapidly.

Unless, of course, the source of the richness is in paying such low wages. Which it, at least partially, is. America has a 200+ year history of being an industrial powerhouse by taking the least-skilled approach to labor.

Yes and no. As long as the labor was local, it allowed for everyone to benefit. The workers could also be consumers, and so companies and workers could benefit side-by-side. With overseas outsourcing, this changes dramatically, and we start losing the advantage of a good consumer base.

Personally, I think the minimum wage should match the poverty level, whatever else happens. The idea that people can be paid less than the lowest amount we say is possible to live on is ridiculous. [But so is the way we currently calculate poverty.]

A valid point, but that also presupposes that there's enough jobs to go around. That's certainly not the case right now. It'd also require "training wages" for those who aren't expected to survive on their income-- like, say, for teenagers still living at home.

Cain wrote:

3278 wrote:Unless, of course, the source of the richness is in paying such low wages. Which it, at least partially, is. America has a 200+ year history of being an industrial powerhouse by taking the least-skilled approach to labor.

Yes and no. As long as the labor was local, it allowed for everyone to benefit. The workers could also be consumers, and so companies and workers could benefit side-by-side. With overseas outsourcing, this changes dramatically, and we start losing the advantage of a good consumer base.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm referring to the American System of Manufacture and its role in making the United States a superpower. Local labor, everyone benefiting, labor outsourcing, none of that has anything to do with what I said, so I don't see how you can say, "Yes and no."

Cain wrote:

3278 wrote:Personally, I think the minimum wage should match the poverty level, whatever else happens. The idea that people can be paid less than the lowest amount we say is possible to live on is ridiculous. [But so is the way we currently calculate poverty.]

A valid point, but that also presupposes that there's enough jobs to go around. That's certainly not the case right now.

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

The problem is not pay, the problem is not enough hours to get enough money. Government discouraging an employer to give a worker more then 40 hours per week is bad enough, so now people have to get two jobs, which ends up costing the worker more (commuting expenses).

Minimum wage increases would cause a larger problem for workers cause the number of jobs and rate of job growth would decrease.

Instead of increasing minimum wage, lift the stupid hour, break, lunch rules the government forces employers and employees to abide by. If I'm not hungry, dont force me to waste a half an hour of my day, instead let me work it so I don't go hungry next week.

Also unemployment doesn't help. Employers perfer to have 6 part time workers rather then 3 full time workers cause of it. Rather then getting fired, people are given 3 hour shifts and two tables during the worst hours of the week for the rest of their lives until they quit. If you quit, your employer doesn't have to pay you unemployment. I'd rather be told that I suck and that they fire me so I can look for a new job asap.

If Kerry get's elected, also expect federal laws forcing employers to get medical for their employees, which of course would be a fee that comes out of worker's paychecks. Joy.

More I hear, more I want to vote for Bush...just to make Karl Marx's theories come true.

Note: Please don't take this post seriously.

A few questions.

What is the minumum wage today?
How much of that goes to taxes?
What is concidered to be below the poverty line?
How much do you really need to make to get by (in an average month)?
Can you really survive on one minimum wage (living a "normal" life, i.e. not being a bum in a cardboard box under a bridge)?

If a piss poor economy like Australia or Norway (comparatively) can afford to give people a decent minimum wage and standard of living,

Before you made this comment I expect you, of course, made the effort to investigate the Norwegian economy. Keeping this in mind, would you care to explain why Norway is, in fact, one of the richest countries of the world? Or how they, practically cut off from EU regulations as they are, remain one of the richest countries in the world?

Van Der Litreb wrote:Before you made this comment I expect you, of course, made the effort to investigate the Norwegian economy. Keeping this in mind, would you care to explain why Norway is, in fact, one of the richest countries of the world? Or how they, practically cut off from EU regulations as they are, remain one of the richest countries in the world?

There is a simple three letter explanation for that: O - I - L

Hush, you! Non-Scandinavians only!

Hey, I knew Norway had oil, I wish I had oil.

What is the minumum wage today?

$5.15/hour

How much of that goes to taxes?

A bit. If the worker has no children and works full time all year, about $300 will go in income taxes (from $10,000 gross income). Add a child, and there are no income taxes for this worker.

Some will go for payroll taxes. Not much, though. I think, perhaps another couple hundred dollars.

Some will go sales tax when he buys things, and to crazy taxes like the ones on cigarettes and booze. If I was only making minimum wage, I'd be buying a lot of booze.

What is concidered to be below the poverty line?

It's about nine and a half thousand a year for a single person or a couple with no children.

How much do you really need to make to get by (in an average month)?

Varies depending on your lifestyle, of course.

Can you really survive on one minimum wage (living a "normal" life, i.e. not being a bum in a cardboard box under a bridge)?

Absolutely, yes. Provided you're just one person, you don't live in a terribly expensive area, like any of the major cities, and you're not thorougly retarded, which - if you're an adult making minimum wage - you probably are.

But yes, you can survive well on minimum wage. I currently live on less than minimum wage.

Chopper, people are not machines. It's one thing to make a living, it's another thing to have a life. From your understanding, there are two routes to take: more hours with less pay or less hours with more pay. Given that people want things to do other than work, what would you rather have?

And we're not talking bankers, doctors, or even auto workers here. We are talking bottom-of-the-barrel folks working bottom-of-the-barrel jobs who weren't lucky enough to get into a job that has a union, your down-and-outers, your retards, and people who were that desperate for a job. These're like Wal-Mart people; they'll never get anywhere in life, but that doesn't mean that their lives have no meaning beyond work.

hmm...I wonder if the impact of minimum wages will depend on the location. I mean, NYC is damn tough to get a place to live in for cheap. While some small city X will be much more cheaper to live, thus needing less to live by...hmm

3278 wrote:

Johnny the Bull wrote:If a piss poor economy like Australia or Norway (comparatively) can afford to give people a decent minimum wage and standard of living, surely the richest and most powerful nation on the planet can do the same or better for its own people.

Unless, of course, the source of the richness is in paying such low wages. Which it, at least partially, is. America has a 200+ year history of being an industrial powerhouse by taking the least-skilled approach to labor.

This before or after labor unions, 32? I mean, before, I can see your point. After...well, I can still see your point, but by that time the laborers were better-skilled, at least as skilled as they needed to be to finish the job.

ak404 wrote:It's one thing to make a living, it's another thing to have a life.

The Constitution guarentee's the pursuit of happiness, not actual happiness.

We are talking bottom-of-the-barrel folks working bottom-of-the-barrel jobs who weren't lucky...

Luck? Well maybe a part of its luck, but you aren't suggesting its all luck right?

I find myself agreeing pretty heavily with Marius and his assesment of the situation.

FlameBlade wrote:hmm...I wonder if the impact of minimum wages will depend on the location. I mean, NYC is damn tough to get a place to live in for cheap. While some small city X will be much more cheaper to live, thus needing less to live by...hmm

I believe thats called Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) in most economic calculators. This was posted here at Bulldrek sometime ago. I think its pretty neat.

For instance on my base wage if I decided to move to Chicago:

A $40000 income in Grand Rapids MI is equivalent to a $52232 income in Chicago IL

You will need an increase of 31% to maintain your standard of living.

So if I can convince Moo and Instant Cash to move up this way they can take a 30% pay cut!

That's the Declaration of Independence, Paul.

And people are entitled to get a chance at happiness - it's one of the few entitlements anyone should get. Like Marius, he's making shit now, but he's also in medical school, which means it'll be worth it in the end. It's a means to an end, not the end itself.

If my entire life was to be summed up as "he worked a minimum wage job," I swear to God I will put a Uzi in my mouth and flick the switch to full auto. If people fuck that chance up or miss the boat of happiness, there's no reason to slap them down in the corporate equivalent of indentured servitude. That's just stupid. Minimum wage is a pit stop, not the finish line: you work the shitty job, you save up some cash, get some education under your belt, you move up to a not-so-shitty job that pays a little more. Maybe you'd like to repeat that process, maybe not, but it's stupid to say that if a person is stuck in a dead-end job, he somehow deserves to make less than what he'd need to keep his head above the the poverty level.

If the minimum wage as we have it now does not allow people to save up cash to be able to move up to that next job, unless that job is the military (and if you take that route, you'd better take advantage of everything they have to offer or you're totally fucked).

Marius wrote:

What is the minumum wage today?

$5.15/hour

ak404 wrote:From your understanding, there are two routes to take: more hours with less pay or less hours with more pay. Given that people want things to do other than work, what would you rather have?

More for less. The magic words that today's generations have become too comfortable with.

What ever happoned to hard work? No wonder jobs are being outsourced.

Van Der Litreb wrote:

Marius wrote:

What is the minumum wage today?

$5.15/hour

6.25$CA here.

Is that the California minimum wage or Canadian minimum wage?

Chopper wrote:Also unemployment doesn't help. Employers perfer to have 6 part time workers rather then 3 full time workers cause of it. Rather then getting fired, people are given 3 hour shifts and two tables during the worst hours of the week for the rest of their lives until they quit. If you quit, your employer doesn't have to pay you unemployment. I'd rather be told that I suck and that they fire me so I can look for a new job asap.

If you're working part time, you should easily have time to look for a new job anyway.

Adam wrote:

Chopper wrote:Also unemployment doesn't help. Employers perfer to have 6 part time workers rather then 3 full time workers cause of it. Rather then getting fired, people are given 3 hour shifts and two tables during the worst hours of the week for the rest of their lives until they quit. If you quit, your employer doesn't have to pay you unemployment. I'd rather be told that I suck and that they fire me so I can look for a new job asap.

If you're working part time, you should easily have time to look for a new job anyway.

My point is, unemployment doesn't really have a benefit, but it is still a business expense. That money could go toward more wages, or expanding the business. In my opinion, without unemployment benefits, job growth will outweigh the releif unemployment benefits provides. A bad side-effect of unemployment is a huge demand for part-time, but very few full-time jobs available at entry level.

Chopper wrote:Government discouraging an employer to give a worker more then 40 hours per week is bad enough, so now people have to get two jobs, which ends up costing the worker more (commuting expenses).

"The government" didn't create the 40-hour work week; labor unions forced the government to institute the 40-hour week.

Chopper wrote:Also unemployment doesn't help. Employers perfer to have 6 part time workers rather then 3 full time workers cause of it.

No, employers prefer 6 part-time workers to 3 full-time workers because part-time workers cost less, because of union-forced, government-mandated benefits for full-time employees.

AK404 wrote:

3278 wrote:Unless, of course, the source of the richness is in paying such low wages. Which it, at least partially, is. America has a 200+ year history of being an industrial powerhouse by taking the least-skilled approach to labor.

This before or after labor unions, 32?

Both. Even today's unionized worker isn't "skilled" at a trade, wherein by "trade" you mean "making something." The thing is, in the early days of America, there was a lot of stuff that needed done, not very many workers, and almost no /skilled/ workers. So when a Frenchman invented interchangable parts - and the machine guides, crucible steel, and assembly-line manufacturing system that made it possible - the Europeans uniformily ignored it, because of the history of things like the loom and the printing press, which skilled laborers - weavers and scribes, in that case - had pretty uniformily smashed when they were invented.

Anyway, in the US, we embraced this system as a tool to free us from the burden of importing all of our goods, and the particular incarnation of the assembly-line concept when you see in America today - the American System of Manufacture - has been with us ever since. As its result, look at everything around you right now, and see how many were brought into existance in one form or another through the ASM. As the man once said, "When was the last time you ever saw a one-off, handmade television?"

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm referring to the American System of Manufacture and its role in making the United States a superpower. Local labor, everyone benefiting, labor outsourcing, none of that has anything to do with what I said, so I don't see how you can say, "Yes and no."

Because manufacturing can't make you any money unless someone's buying the stuff you make. The system itself didn't make us an economic superpower, it's how it fit into the rest of the puzzle that did the job.

Also unemployment doesn't help. Employers perfer to have 6 part time workers rather then 3 full time workers cause of it. Rather then getting fired, people are given 3 hour shifts and two tables during the worst hours of the week for the rest of their lives until they quit. If you quit, your employer doesn't have to pay you unemployment. I'd rather be told that I suck and that they fire me so I can look for a new job asap.

You've got that completely wrong. Very seldom does unemployment come out of the employers pocket. UI comes from a tax on both the employer and the employee.

The reason why employers don't like to hire full-time workers are health benefits. One thing both major parties agree on is that medical costs are skyrocketing, making insurance prices shoot way up, without people actually getting better care. The huge costs, plus all the paperwork and overhead, means that it's cheaper to hire two part-timers than have to deal with one full time employee. This is pretty much accepted by everyone, although the root cause us up for debate, as everyone points fingers at everyone else.

My point is, unemployment doesn't really have a benefit, but it is still a business expense. That money could go toward more wages, or expanding the business. In my opinion, without unemployment benefits, job growth will outweigh the releif unemployment benefits provides. A bad side-effect of unemployment is a huge demand for part-time, but very few full-time jobs available at entry level.

Dude, take a look at an average paycheck. There'll be a couple of dollars taken out for UI, if at all. Maybe a few bucks taken out for L&I. And several hundred for medical insurance, depending on your plan and employer contribution.

UI, being a government program, means there'sonly one playbook for everyone. Most medical plans offer a huge array of choices, all with different sets of rules. Employers can shove the UI deductions into the job description of a normal payroll accountant, but they have to hire special people just to deal with insurance. Trust me on this, you're way the hell off on Unemployment, but you'd be spot-on when you're discussing Medical Insurance.

What is the minumum wage today?

Federally, $5.15 an hour. It varies by state, however. It's possible to pay a person less, if the business is extremely small and does no regular interstate business. Mostly, states tend to go up from the Federal standard.

Can you really survive on one minimum wage?

Depends on locale and situation. College students and people who live with their parents can get by. Anyone trying to live independantly is going to have a rough time of it, and anyone with kids pretty much can't do it.

Me bad. For some reason, I thought the employer had to pay half of the unemployment checks while the state and federal pitch in to match the amount. Apparently the checks come from the state and federal without the employer having any contribution, except the premiums.

I'm going to go into a corner and enjoy the taste of my foot in my mouth now.

Personally I don't see how incresing minimum wage will help anyone. I'm 17 years old and I've held four jobs in my life-time and I've never been paid less then $6.50 an hour. I've worked mom and pop, I've worked at a grocery store, I've worked at a theater and currently I'm a proud employee of K-mart where as a cashier with no retail experience I make $7.25 and hour. Even the jobs I haven't excepted weren't offering minimm wage it was always at least $6.00 an hour and mostly $6.50. There's no need to raise minimum wage, no one gets paid it anymore anyway.

Van Der Litreb wrote:

If a piss poor economy like Australia or Norway (comparatively) can afford to give people a decent minimum wage and standard of living,

Before you made this comment I expect you, of course, made the effort to investigate the Norwegian economy. Keeping this in mind, would you care to explain why Norway is, in fact, one of the richest countries of the world? Or how they, practically cut off from EU regulations as they are, remain one of the richest countries in the world?

Duh, yes Norway is a rich country. Western Europe is full of rich countries. Australia is a rich country.

However, compared to the US we are fucking paupers. The economic power of the US is mind boggling - it is the greatest power in the history of the world.

That Norweigians have a better standard of living than the citizens of the modern Roman empire is a fucking disgrace.

Even the worst job I've ever held paid me 10 USD/hr, and I was 15. It just amazes me that you can live in a country with such huge disparities in earnings and not be pissed that you only get say 10 bucks an hour.

I'd be going apeshit.

That Norweigians have a better standard of living than the citizens of the modern Roman empire is a fucking disgrace.

Fuck off. They've got higher GDP per capita by 10%.

Even the worst job I've ever held paid me 10 USD/hr, and I was 15. It just amazes me that you can live in a country with such huge disparities in earnings and not be pissed that you only get say 10 bucks an hour.

I'd be going apeshit.

About disparity? You need to realize that you're not worth what the other guy gets paid. Ten dollars an hour is plenty of money for an individual, especially here. Fuck, when Veed was making $18 USD in Denmark, he had no trouble figuring out that it wasn't really any more than the same job would get him in this country (roughly $8 U.S.) considering taxes, exchange rate and cost of living.

Mysticdragons007 wrote:Personally I don't see how incresing minimum wage will help anyone. I'm 17 years old and I've held four jobs in my life-time and I've never been paid less then $6.50 an hour. I've worked mom and pop, I've worked at a grocery store, I've worked at a theater and currently I'm a proud employee of K-mart where as a cashier with no retail experience I make $7.25 and hour. Even the jobs I haven't excepted weren't offering minimm wage it was always at least $6.00 an hour and mostly $6.50. There's no need to raise minimum wage, no one gets paid it anymore anyway.

Don't forget that your state minimum wage may be higher. And raising the minimum wage does tend to increase wages across the board. (Which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your POV.)

I do think Kerry's just playing politics with this one. He's in a dead heat with Bush in the battleground states, and this is the sort of issue that helps the left get mobilized and into the pollbooths.

Johnny the Bull wrote:That Norweigians have a better standard of living than the citizens of the modern Roman empire is a fucking disgrace.

It's ironic you should make that comparison. We're in the same boat they were, just for different reasons; the American System of Manufacture versus the slave society. Anyway, the point here is that the ASM allows for democratization of possessions and economy of scale such that our cost of living is very much lower here than in most other civilized countries. More significantly, the /disparity/ in income means that while the average cost of living is fairly high, the low end is quite low; but since our economy is cranking out such low-cost objects, the low income workers can still survive very very well. You'll notice that no matter how poor most people are, they still manage to buy a TV set.

You have to understand I can buy a loaf of bread for a quarter here. Living on minimum wage isn't even remotely impossible, and it's only "difficult" by the decadent standards of our age and culture. The American System of Manufacture makes our working poor the best-living peasants in the history of the world.

Marius wrote:Fuck, when Veed was making $18 USD in Denmark, ...

Actually, they just bumped me to $19 / hour. Not too bad for stacking prawn.

... he had no trouble figuring out that it wasn't really any more than the same job would get him in this country (roughly $8 U.S.) considering taxes, exchange rate and cost of living.

Not to nitpick, but I doubt that $8 in the US is the equivalent of $18 in Denmark; if I worked 40 hours a week (I usually don't; the standard work week is 37 hours here) at $18 an hour, I'd have about $490 after taxes. At $8, I'd have $320, before taxes. Even with the slightly higher cost of living here (let's just put it at a flat 10% higher), that really doesn't come out being equal. Also, living here, I wouldn't have to worry about medical insurance/treatment and education funding.

More on topic, I don't think we even have a national minimum wage. However, since you can't really work in an area not influenced by a union, you will never ever have to work below $14.5 / hour. And even that is getting pretty rare; the temp agency I work for (untrained physical labour) assures me a minimum wage of $17.

For some more hang-over, taking-way-too-long-to-figure-out calculus; at $14.5 an hour (our unofficial minimum wage), 40 hours a week, I'd have about $410 after taxes.

Oh, I understand your nation's ability to maintain low labour costs in a first world society is one of the primary reasons for your economic success. What confuses me is why your heartland peasants aren't coming out in droves to demand higher wages. I grew up in a poor area. I've seen poor. But damn, our poor ain't got nothing on American poor. Last time I was in LA I saw people living in conditions I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

As for lower living costs? Not that I've seen. When I was considering moving out to the States in '99 (lucky I didn't) I would have been paying a shit ton more for the standard of living I was maintaining in Australia. No universal healthcare, high insurance costs, high rent, few mandated holidays etc would have offset any savings I would have made from being taxed at a lower rate and then some.

Keep in mind that has a lot to do with where you choose to live. Bizarrely, many of America's poorest people choose to live in the places it costs the most to live in: cities. Goofballs.

Also remember the modern American /standard/ of living: practically everyone owns a car, a PlayStation, and at least a couple of televisions.

Our cars are really cheap. And don't last as long as European or Japanese cars. Like everything else here. It's not nearly as good, but it costs vastly less. American TVs are crap, but ya sure can buy 'em for nothing! Land's cheap, too: we have so much space compared to Europeans, it's just nuts.

The /way of life/ here is very different, which makes comparisons between America and Europe or Australia very difficult. If you tried to pay everyone in America US$14.50, I don't think it'd go very well, you know what I mean?

One thing I noticed in the Netherlands was that conditions of the poor there are better than the conditions of the poor here, even though our poor people have more /stuff./ That's pretty emblematic of the influence of the American System of Manufacture. We also have another condition here which the Netherlands experiences also, although to a vastly lesser extent: a massive influx of the very poor, people who are /willing/ and /happy/ to work for US$2 an hour, and who have what they consider no difficulty surviving on that. [This is less true today than historically; today we deal much more with the /aftereffects/ of the previous influxes.]

Since we /can/ pay people so little, we /do./ We're not concerned with the little guy, and making sure he's getting by okay. As a result, we have the power and money to, well, rule the world. We, like the Roman Empire before us, are an industrial force based on a slave economy; our slaves just don't carry the name: we call them "Mexicans," or "robots." We don't give either one of them health benefits; their survival is not a factor in our success, since they are completely replaceable [and in fact, we have more of them than we need].

We haven't the workers uprisen? I think they're distracted by other, ancilliary issues, like American Idol and race relations. We don't have the gladiatorial pits anymore.

I can't believe that people are actually arguing that it's a good idea not to pay people better money to do shit work.

Keep in mind that has a lot to do with where you choose to live. Bizarrely, many of America's poorest people choose to live in the places it costs the most to live in: cities.

That's because that's where the jobs are. Out in the rural countryside, where you can rent several acres of unfarmable land for maybe a hundred a month, and assuming you toss up an RV your parents gave you, you're so far away from any decent job that you'll waste more in gas money commuting than you would living in-city.

Look, if you live a hundred miles away from your job, and let's even say you have a crappy car that gets 20 mpg. Therefore, it costs you ten gallons of gas to commute; at current prices, that's about 20 dollars a day. On a weekday schedule, there are 21 working days per month, so we're looking at $420/month in gas alone. This doesn't even include the extra costs for car maintenance, or parking fees, or so on. It also doesn't include the extra driving you have to do to buy groceries, or to do anything except sit at home. As a plus, however, your rent is only $400/month.

Now, let's say that your job subsidizes bus passes, so you can buy one for $20 a month. However, the bus doesn't go out into the rural countryside, so you have to live in-city. Even if your rent increases by 50%, to $600/month, you're still coming out ahead. If your rent stays the same, or decreases-- perhaps your family owns a house, or you've got roommates-- then you're coming out ahead.

The economics of cities have always meant that it's better for the poor to live in cities than in the country. You have better access to social services, to survive until you get a job; and you have easier access to jobs.

We haven't the workers uprisen? I think they're distracted by other, ancilliary issues, like American Idol and race relations. We don't have the gladiatorial pits anymore.

Sadly, you're probably completely right on this one. Bread and circuses. I think you'll see your "uprising" if gas prices start spiking again, though.

(BTW, we do have the gladitorial pits. It's called "Professional Wrestling" )

We haven't the workers uprisen? I think they're distracted by other, ancilliary issues, like American Idol and race relations. We don't have the gladiatorial pits anymore.

And I think it's because they have the highest standard of living that the working class has ever had in the entire history of the world. We don't have an uprising, because despite not getting health benefits, and despite not getting paid as much as lawyers, or even teachers, they're very well off. They're better off than they have ever been in history. We don't have an upsrising because the unfairness of reality in general is always recognized as, well, reality, and has never really been a good reason to get yourself dead.

Cain wrote:

3278 wrote:Keep in mind that has a lot to do with where you choose to live. Bizarrely, many of America's poorest people choose to live in the places it costs the most to live in: cities.

That's because that's where the jobs are.

No, the jobs aren't in the inner cities. They're not even /in/ the cities.

Cain wrote:Out in the rural countryside, where you can rent several acres of unfarmable land for maybe a hundred a month, and assuming you toss up an RV your parents gave you, you're so far away from any decent job that you'll waste more in gas money commuting than you would living in-city.

No one said "rural countryside." That's absurd. Conditions in the rural countryside are often as bad as they are in the inner city.

Cain wrote:Look, if you live a hundred miles away from your job...

Oh, come on. 100 miles from your job? When did anyone suggest that?

You know what's really weird? I do believe that you can make more money from welfare or unemployment than you can off 40 hours a week at minimum wage.