Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

How's that $15 / hour min. wage working out for you?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/news...-15/index.html



And they're not even up to 15 yet.

Proof yet again that despite liberal fantasies, you just can't get money from thin air.

"when wages went up to $13 in 2016, low-wage workers saw their hours drop by 9%"

so they work less for the same daily pay?

[Annoyed]

"when wages went up to $13 in 2016, low-wage workers saw their hours drop by 9%"

so they work less for the same daily pay?

No. Wage rate/hour higher, but less hours worked, so smaller paycheck.

[Falcon Horus]

I didn't forget it, the folks who wrote the law did.

So every employer wrote that bill -- I doubt it.

[aretood2]

What, you think everyone who has a job wanted to be doing that? A great many people don't like their jobs, and in fact hate them, but they have to put food on the table and a roof over their head, they have to take whatever they can get hired for. What is it, about 25% of college graduates don't end up working in the field they went to school for?

Some jobs are hated more than others. I don't know exactly what cost benefit analysis goes into each persons head when considering different jobs. I just know the aggregate result. Not everyone takes any job. There are plenty of jobs in my area, yet not everyone is taking them. I know of a homeless family in a neighbooring area, they are either oblivious of the opportunities in my areas or simply not willing to take those jobs. That's anecdotal, yes, but it's an example of a fact proven by observation and economics.

So you either force these people to work in those jobs (no amount of financial threats of removing welfare will work) or you find other people willing to take those jobs or you find government funded incentives for them to take it. Simply not wanting immigrants isn't going to magically change human behavior.

And legal residents don't have access to the same schools, doctors and hospitals, transportation infrastructure and everything else that citizens have?
Or is it just that they deserve to have it handed to them? No one is handing all that to US citizens either.

Considering that you want to take that access away...yeah it merited mentioning. But I mean actual access to education. Not every citizen/resident has the same access to the same education or healthcare for that matter. And I would ask you to search for Womble's post about his visit to the Midwest to look into how poor our infrastructure is for allowing easy transportation. For a country this large, transportation is a massive barrier to getting employed. If people didn't have to spend as much on gas money, car insurance, car maintenance, they'd have more disposable income too that can be fed into the economy.

In any case, having clear access to these three items plus a reliability secure environment would insure maximum social mobility for both immigrants and citizens.

Not in its current form.

Trump did promise to change that...only to give the rich more tax cuts. Once again, thank you for your awesome choice. I can expect to pay more taxes next year if his budget passes just so I can watch 22 million Americans loose their healthcare. But hey,
the stock market is doing just fine, so good news for those of you who are professional investors or owners of large corporations/banks or rich.

about "taking jobs people don't want".....that's also why a proper sacrificial work ethic needs to be re-instated.....my grandparents' generation by and large knew how to make sacrifices and weren't afraid of menial labor, such as "Florida orange picking" as you put it

the problem is that kids these days aren't inclined to make these same sorts of sacrifices....seems like all kids these days know how to do is sit on their lazy bums playing "Pokemon Go" or whatever non-stop

And do you plan on having Uncle same dictate what jobs certain people have to take? That's really the only solution other than getting other people who are willing to take these jobs. And besides, why do you want downward mobility? My parents are lawyers but I am going to go ahead and work in an assembly line, hurrah for the American dream? Shouldn't it work in the opposite direction?

Yeah, that's why I get paid 25 bucks an hour and Australia is collapsing.
You are brainwashed into believing the corporate line, and it's really sad.

You get paid 25 an hour to ask "You want fries with that?"

[Annoyed]

Some jobs are hated more than others. I don't know exactly what cost benefit analysis goes into each persons head when considering different jobs. I just know the aggregate result. Not everyone takes any job. There are plenty of jobs in my area, yet not everyone is taking them. I know of a homeless family in a neighbooring area, they are either oblivious of the opportunities in my areas or simply not willing to take those jobs. That's anecdotal, yes, but it's an example of a fact proven by observation and economics.

So you either force these people to work in those jobs (no amount of financial threats of removing welfare will work) or you find other people willing to take those jobs or you find government funded incentives for them to take it. Simply not wanting immigrants isn't going to magically change human behavior.

Or, you actually follow through and cut welfare off. Faced between starvation & a job they don't like, most people will have to choose the job they hate. I know I've had to several times in my life.
The threat if "work or starve" carries little weight if it is common knowledge and expectation that welfare will step in. Remove that expectation, and you might get better results.

Considering that you want to take that access away...yeah it merited mentioning. But I mean actual access to education. Not every citizen/resident has the same access to the same education or healthcare for that matter. And I would ask you to search for Womble's post about his visit to the Midwest to look into how poor our infrastructure is for allowing easy transportation. For a country this large, transportation is a massive barrier to getting employed. If people didn't have to spend as much on gas money, car insurance, car maintenance, they'd have more disposable income too that can be fed into the economy.

Again, not unique to immigrants, legal or illegal. If one can't afford a car, one would have to choose to live in an urban area where public transportation is practical.

Or do you propose to try to do public transportation in suburban and rural areas? Hint: It's unworkable, financially. Not enough users/mile to pay for it.
Or do you want to just hand them a car, pay for their insurance and such?

If I can pay for mine, they can pay for theirs. Or I want to be paid back for all of my car expenses since I was 16.

[The Flyattractor]

Yeah, that's why I get paid 25 bucks an hour and Australia is collapsing.
You are brainwashed into believing the corporate line, and it's really sad.

Is that what the min is in Ozzie Land? Are you a Shrimp on the Barbie Flipper or a Vegamite Taste Tester?

Or are you one of those Stuck Up Elitist Rich People like most Leftist Oppressors?

[jelgate]

I think Annoyed is living in the past where anyone who wanted a financially stable job could get one

[The Flyattractor]

Translation. Jel can't get a job.

[SoulReaver]

Or, you actually follow through and cut welfare off. Faced between starvation & a job they don't like, most people will have to choose the job they hate. I know I've had to several times in my life.
The threat if "work or starve" carries little weight if it is common knowledge and expectation that welfare will step in. Remove that expectation, and you might get better results.

there's a 3rd option

[The Flyattractor]

there's a 3rd option

Not everyone can send out their souless clone copies to get extra part time jobs to make money like you can Reavey.

[pookey]

Pennywise sounds like a cheap shop

[Womble]

I think Annoyed is living in the past where anyone who wanted a financially stable job could get one

In that case he is not living in any kind of historical past.

[aretood2]

Or, you actually follow through and cut welfare off. Faced between starvation & a job they don't like, most people will have to choose the job they hate. I know I've had to several times in my life.
The threat if "work or starve" carries little weight if it is common knowledge and expectation that welfare will step in. Remove that expectation, and you might get better results.

Here's a problem, you're assuming that the culpable variable in play here is welfare. If that is the case then how do you account for seeing the same exact pattern before there was welfare in the US? Before welfare, there were still many many poor people in the US. There was still massive levels of immigration. There were still entire job markets mostly if not exclusively regulated to immigrants (While others excluded some groups of immigrants), and had these immigrants not been here, not as much would have been produced and their contribution to American economy (a major source of the US becoming a world power) would have been absent.

You seem to be operating under the impression that people in welfare refuse to work and live it up on those "checks" and "food stamps". Welfare isn't actually that impressive and a great deal of its recipients do work. They just don't make enough. There aren't any orange trees in West Virginia, so should the nearly 400,000 food stamp users (1/5th of the population) go? And when they quit their jobs, whats going to happen to those businesses? I mean, you could get 400,000 workers from elsewhere, but what about the businesses that depend on their work?

Again, not unique to immigrants, legal or illegal. If one can't afford a car, one would have to choose to live in an urban area where public transportation is practical.

We weren't talking about illegals, so stop name dropping them.

The reason we don't have a more extensive bus system is more cultural than economic.

Or do you propose to try to do public transportation in suburban and rural areas? Hint: It's unworkable, financially. Not enough users/mile to pay for it.
Or do you want to just hand them a car, pay for their insurance and such?

Why wouldn't suburban public transport work? It works just fine in Argentina, why wouldn't it work here? Obviously not every little hamlet of 100 people in the Nevada desert would have access to it as much as a college town in Pennsylvania would. But there's no reason why you can't have people who live in towns have at least an hourly bus.
Other nations have been able to do it. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Europe (Keep in mind that you have places like France which is the size of Texas). It's not so much an issue of finance,
but of culture and that it's an alien idea for you. It can work.

Now take in mind just how congested our roads are getting, the more traffic you get, the more accidents you get. Unless you deal with it with automation that is but then you don't want autopilot on cars. The thing is, you're against every single solution to modern day problems....

If I can pay for mine, they can pay for theirs. Or I want to be paid back for all of my car expenses since I was 16.

And this is the crux of the issue. Louis C.K. had a scene in his tv show that explains this perfectly. I'll quote and link it for you so you can decide which way you want to see it.

"The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl, is to make sure they have enough you don't look in a neighbor's bowl to make sure you have as much as them..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKlu9DJa5PM

The scene is about one of his daughters who didn't get the pit of the Mango they were eating and her sister did. So the daughter wanted a pit too, but there was none and she was complaining that it wasn't fair and that he had to make it fair somehow. The point is that sometimes it's more important to make sure we are all okay than to make sure we all get the same thing. Your response reeks of the mentality he was talking about.

I am not saying buy people cars, not by a long shot. I am saying that we should have a more extensive bus system (among other things that fall under the category of "infrastructure"). A bus system, for example, would also be available to you. Obviously not all of America will have the same levels of mass transit, but some is better than none.

[aretood2]

In that case he is not living in any kind of historical past.

I keep trying to tell him that, but he won't listen. It's worse than talking to FH or GF about Israel (No offense FH or GF).

[Annoyed]

The reason we don't have a more extensive bus system is more cultural than economic.



Why wouldn't suburban public transport work? It works just fine in Argentina, why wouldn't it work here? Obviously not every little hamlet of 100 people in the Nevada desert would have access to it as much as a college town in Pennsylvania would. But there's no reason why you can't have people who live in towns have at least an hourly bus.
Other nations have been able to do it. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Europe (Keep in mind that you have places like France which is the size of Texas). It's not so much an issue of finance,
but of culture and that it's an alien idea for you. It can work.

Now take in mind just how congested our roads are getting, the more traffic you get, the more accidents you get. Unless you deal with it with automation that is but then you don't want autopilot on cars. The thing is, you're against every single solution to modern day problems....

I am not saying buy people cars, not by a long shot. I am saying that we should have a more extensive bus system (among other things that fall under the category of "infrastructure"). A bus system, for example, would also be available to you. Obviously not all of America will have the same levels of mass transit, but some is better than none.

Mass transit isn't financially viable in areas that aren't densely populated for the simple reason that there aren't enough people even in these areas to pay the costs of operating the bus or whatever. The bus company can't afford to operate the buses if there aren't enough paying passengers to cover the cost and whatever profit they deem needed.

Unless of course, the govt. pays for them with tax dollars, and again, that's just sticking the taxpayer with the bill.