I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[Jolly_Penguin]

quating a living wage = social support is a logical mistake, since a wage is earned with the work providing some self-satisfaction and self-worth while a person on social support may be viewed as some sort of parasite (that view frequently appears in threads like these) in the USA.

But a "living wage" forced through legislation is social support by definition. It is by making people pay others more than the market deems the work is worth. It is unbalanced social support, taking all of the money from the employer, when it could be balanced and taken from all evenly via taxation and treated as a subsidy, like we subsidize all sorts of other positive things in society. The entire military is funded through the government and soldiers are glorified in your culture.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Except, of course, I didn't. One was a personal statement, the other an observation of a general behavior.

But you already knew that.

Saying that paying people at a particular wage devalues them is not an observation of a general behavior.

Actually it is.

It is a value judgment you made.

What is a McJob? If you know, then the statement was not a value judgement that I made, but something in the zeitgeist. You may well be a member of a cloistered minority. And that would be your problem.

Anyway, you don't seem to want to own up to your own contradiction, and I'm not really interested in nitpicking further, so I'll move on.

You chose this path, not I.

 

[prideandfall]

But a "living wage" forced through legislation is social support by definition.

is it though?
i mean think about this: every single business in this country nearly without exception relies on a number of governmental and social supports in order to function:
1. roadways and the entire roads infrastructure allowing access to their business site(s).
2. the electrical grid and other utilities related services.
3. police and general civil enforcement (to prevent an armed mob just storming in and taking everything).
4. a prosperous citizenry with enough spare income to spend.
5. really, just the overall structure of modern society and the safety it brings.

given that business can't exist on without the infrastructure and support of society, and given that largely due to business and the gradual consolidation of power and resources into business control that over the last 200 years (alongside technological advancement and the inevitable Bataan Death March of human civilization "progress") has made being an off-the-grid independent mountain hobo basically impossible, i don't think it's unreasonable to declare that within a culture that operates on a "work for a living" principle requires that working can adequate finance living.
business is in a symbiotic relationship with society that it (and many people here) for some reason thinks is parasitic - that the human race is just a giant, bloated, obliviously unaware host waiting to have its blood sucked out.

It is by making people pay others more than the market deems the work is worth.

except that "the market" hasn't deemed shit, and the entire idea that "the market" in any way allocates resources pursuant to anything resembling a meritocracy is so laughably asinine it defies any attempt to make it with a straight face.

It is unbalanced social support, taking all of the money from the employer, when it could be balanced and taken from all evenly via taxation and treated as a subsidy, like we subsidize all sorts of other positive things in society. The entire military is funded through the government and soldiers are glorified in your culture.

but then you're talking about something like UBI or some sort of minimal standard for every person, and the conservotards have clearly shown (even in this thread) that they'll flip the shit out until they prolapse their rectums into dangling veiny polish sausages that they carry around behind them dripping blood and mucus on the carpet before they let you provide resources to someone (that isn't a multi-billion dollar business.)

it's the same basic problem as pretty much anything AA says: sure, it's all well and good to post a meme on your facebook about how morally righteously outraged you are about something, but "change the paradigm" is about as helpful to resolving the issue as "let them eat cake."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

is it though?
i mean think about this: every single business in this country nearly without exception relies on a number of governmental and social supports in order to function:
1. roadways and the entire roads infrastructure allowing access to their business site(s).
2. the electrical grid and other utilities related services.
3. police and general civil enforcement (to prevent an armed mob just storming in and taking everything).
4. a prosperous citizenry with enough spare income to spend.
5. really, just the overall structure of modern society and the safety it brings.

given that business can't exist on without the infrastructure and support of society, and given that largely due to business and the gradual consolidation of power and resources into business control that over the last 200 years (alongside technological advancement and the inevitable Bataan Death March of human civilization "progress") has made being an off-the-grid independent mountain hobo basically impossible, i don't think it's unreasonable to declare that within a culture that operates on a "work for a living" principle requires that working can adequate finance living.
business is in a symbiotic relationship with society that it (and many people here) for some reason thinks is parasitic - that the human race is just a giant, bloated, obliviously unaware host waiting to have its blood sucked out.

It is by making people pay others more than the market deems the work is worth.

except that "the market" hasn't deemed shit, and the entire idea that "the market" in any way allocates resources pursuant to anything resembling a meritocracy is so laughably asinine it defies any attempt to make it with a straight face.

It is unbalanced social support, taking all of the money from the employer, when it could be balanced and taken from all evenly via taxation and treated as a subsidy, like we subsidize all sorts of other positive things in society. The entire military is funded through the government and soldiers are glorified in your culture.

but then you're talking about something like UBI or some sort of minimal standard for every person, and the conservotards have clearly shown (even in this thread) that they'll flip the shit out until they prolapse their rectums into dangling veiny polish sausages that they carry around behind them dripping blood and mucus on the carpet before they let you provide resources to someone (that isn't a multi-billion dollar business.)

it's the same basic problem as pretty much anything AA says: sure, it's all well and good to post a meme on your facebook about how morally righteously outraged you are about something, but "change the paradigm" is about as helpful to resolving the issue as "let them eat cake."

How helpful do you wish me to be? How deep do you want to go?

 

[prideandfall]

How helpful do you wish me to be?

you're a name on a message board, you're about as capable of being "helpful" as you are capable of fixing my garbage disposal.

How deep do you want to go?

... kinky. and also, that's what she said.

 

[ksen]

Interlude:

My wife wasn't feeling well one weekend so I went out for a bit with my Turkish friend. We were standing at the bar and there was a bachelorette party going on. They were playing a game of asking strangers questions. I got invited over and they asked me how big is my penis.

I said, "How big is your mouth?"

looooooooooooool! Drinks all around!

/interlude

 

[AthenaAwakened]

you're a name on a message board, you're about as capable of being "helpful" as you are capable of fixing my garbage disposal.

How deep do you want to go?

... kinky. and also, that's what she said.

That's what I thought.

 

[laughing dog]

But a "living wage" forced through legislation is social support by definition.

Maybe by your definition but not others.

It is by making people pay others more than the market deems the work is worth.

Assuming that is true, so what? There is nothing magical about a market or its outcomes.

It is unbalanced social support, taking all of the money from the employer, when it could be balanced and taken from all evenly via taxation and treated as a subsidy, like we subsidize all sorts of other positive things in society. The entire military is funded through the government and soldiers are glorified in your culture.

Your value judgment is that income maintenance should be "balanced" in its funding. Obviously in the USA, the voting citizenry disagrees at this time.

You asked why the people of the USA do not seem to appreciate your view and I gave you some possible reasons. Reasons need not be logical or consistent or admirable or sensible.

 

[Axulus]

Indeed. So why do the people in the US want to push these things on employers? Why are employers considered the go to place for social supports there? And is there any outcry by employers to get proper government social support in place?

I suppose people think employers ought to pay a living wage. Equating a living wage = social support is a logical mistake, since a wage is earned with the work providing some self-satisfaction and self-worth while a person on social support may be viewed as some sort of parasite (that view frequently appears in threads like these) in the USA. To answer your last question, the answer is NO.

But isn't the economic effect similar to a tax on labor, and on low wage labor no less? Isn't low wage labor taxed enough already? Why do you want to implement massive additional taxes on it and disincentive the use of this resource even more than it already is?

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it. Doesn't this shift resources even more into capital? A robot never makes an injury claim, never sues you, never cares if you no longer need to use it, has no minimum wage, can work 24/7, doesn't need health care, doesn't need vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, never has children, doesn't have to have payroll taxes paid on the income it produces, doesn't have the administrative burden of paying it every two weeks and filing all related reports, doesn't just not show up for work unexpectedly, doesn't run the risk of committing crimes, doesn't lie on its resume, doesn't need to be interviewed, doesn't need to be trained, and more. By making a law relating to most of these, you make it so far fewer workers will be hired and way more profit can be made by investing in R&D to make employee replacements.

Is the end vision by the left for society to be a bunch of unemployed/underemployed people who struggled with gaining an education and have been replaced by capital, and a bunch of elite creatives who hold all the important jobs and rake in the dough?

 

[laughing dog]

But isn't the economic effect similar to a tax on labor, and on low wage labor no less? Isn't low wage labor taxed enough already? Why do you want to implement massive additional taxes on it and disincentive the use of this resource even more than it already is?

Please do not confuse an explanation as to why people in the USA might prefer employers pay a living wage to generalized income support as a statement as to my preferences.

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it. Doesn't this shift resources even more into capital? A robot never makes an injury claim, never sues you, never cares if you no longer need to use it, has no minimum wage, can work 24/7, doesn't need health care, doesn't need vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, never has children, doesn't have to have payroll taxes paid on the income it produces, doesn't have the administrative burden of paying it every two weeks and filing all related reports, doesn't just not show up for work unexpectedly, doesn't run the risk of committing crimes, doesn't lie on its resume, doesn't need to be interviewed, doesn't need to be trained, and more. By making a law relating to most of these, you make it so far fewer workers will be hired and way more profit can be made by investing in R&D to make employee replacements.

Is the end vision by the left for society to be a bunch of unemployed/underemployed people who struggled with gaining an education and have been replaced by capital, and a bunch of elite creatives who hold all the important jobs and rake in the dough?

Yeah, that is "the left's" end vision. You have revealed their awful plan.

 

[ksen]

I suppose people think employers ought to pay a living wage. Equating a living wage = social support is a logical mistake, since a wage is earned with the work providing some self-satisfaction and self-worth while a person on social support may be viewed as some sort of parasite (that view frequently appears in threads like these) in the USA. To answer your last question, the answer is NO.

But isn't the economic effect similar to a tax on labor, and on low wage labor no less? Isn't low wage labor taxed enough already? Why do you want to implement massive additional taxes on it and disincentive the use of this resource even more than it already is?

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it. Doesn't this shift resources even more into capital? A robot never makes an injury claim, never sues you, never cares if you no longer need to use it, has no minimum wage, can work 24/7, doesn't need health care, doesn't need vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, never has children, doesn't have to have payroll taxes paid on the income it produces, doesn't have the administrative burden of paying it every two weeks and filing all related reports, doesn't just not show up for work unexpectedly, doesn't run the risk of committing crimes, doesn't lie on its resume, doesn't need to be interviewed, doesn't need to be trained, and more. By making a law relating to most of these, you make it so far fewer workers will be hired and way more profit can be made by investing in R&D to make employee replacements.

Is the end vision by the left for society to be a bunch of unemployed/underemployed people who struggled with gaining an education and have been replaced by capital, and a bunch of elite creatives who hold all the important jobs and rake in the dough?

tl;dr

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) There is one thing society should do that would help women like her: Our current system is geared to favor the part-time employee. That should change:

1a) Part-timers get cash equal to the share of the benefits a full-time worker would get.

1b) An extra amount that must be paid if you change a worker's schedule at the last minute. (We already have a concept of reporting pay--there's a minimum number of hours they must pay you for if you walk through the door. Something like this should be extended to your schedule if it's changed too close in.)

1c) A minimum wage for intervals within a split schedule.

There's no way this is going to happen, though. The right would hate it and the left would hate how it would drive up the unemployment rate. (Because it would convert 2 20 hr/wk jobs into one full time and one unemployed.)


2) Her main problem lies elsewhere, though. Note: She's always worked shit jobs. She has kids, plural. There doesn't seem to be a husband or child support in the picture. Sorry, gal, but if you get yourself knocked up repeatedly before getting an education you're going through life in poverty.

 

[prideandfall]

But isn't the economic effect similar to a tax on labor, and on low wage labor no less? Isn't low wage labor taxed enough already? Why do you want to implement massive additional taxes on it and disincentive the use of this resource even more than it already is?

It seems like the left wants to put up as many barriers as possible when hiring employees, making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, and making you vulnerable to all sorts of legal actions, to make sure employers do even less of it. Doesn't this shift resources even more into capital? A robot never makes an injury claim, never sues you, never cares if you no longer need to use it, has no minimum wage, can work 24/7, doesn't need health care, doesn't need vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, never has children, doesn't have to have payroll taxes paid on the income it produces, doesn't have the administrative burden of paying it every two weeks and filing all related reports, doesn't just not show up for work unexpectedly, doesn't run the risk of committing crimes, doesn't lie on its resume, doesn't need to be interviewed, doesn't need to be trained, and more. By making a law relating to most of these, you make it so far fewer workers will be hired and way more profit can be made by investing in R&D to make employee replacements.

Is the end vision by the left for society to be a bunch of unemployed/underemployed people who struggled with gaining an education and have been replaced by capital, and a bunch of elite creatives who hold all the important jobs and rake in the dough?

this doesn't directly correlate, but it made me think of something i have often been curious about to some of the economic-right posters here:
you questioned earlier the concept or definition of a "living wage", so kind of reversing that i wonder if you have any pre-defined notions of a "living profit" - because it seems to me that your general attitude is predicated on this idea that by virtue of it existing, any business is entitled to make some minimum percentage of pure profit.
so, is there some standard by which you measure the amount of profit a business must be allowed to make?
i just get this impression from the way you post about business that you'd rather do away with minimum wage and regulations protecting employees in general and instead institute laws which require people to give money to designated businesses so that their profit margins never fall below a set amount.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You asked why the people of the USA do not seem to appreciate your view and I gave you some possible reasons. Reasons need not be logical or consistent or admirable or sensible.

This is true. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm triggered.

Me too. The article should have a "trigger warning" posted or something. I mean if it's required for Greek classics, it should be required for this dross.

That woman whines that she is not paid much for low skilled work but she made a choice to work in food service for 16 years even though she (presumably) has a college degree. She made a choice to have children. Why should the rest of us feel guilty about her choices in life?

People are different. A lot of people can't deal with normal office jobs. Some people are very interpersonal and can only have jobs where they deal directly with others. There's a massive group of people who have no analytical skills at all. It is not uncommon. Loads of people are serious language problems, and for that reason aren't suited for a normal job.

And lastly, I don't believe having children is a choice. I think it is 100% instinct. We might rationalise the "choice". But I don't think it is.

 

[arkirk]

Me too. The article should have a "trigger warning" posted or something. I mean if it's required for Greek classics, it should be required for this dross.

That woman whines that she is not paid much for low skilled work but she made a choice to work in food service for 16 years even though she (presumably) has a college degree. She made a choice to have children. Why should the rest of us feel guilty about her choices in life?

People are different. A lot of people can't deal with normal office jobs. Some people are very interpersonal and can only have jobs where they deal directly with others. There's a massive group of people who have no analytical skills at all. It is not uncommon. Loads of people are serious language problems, and for that reason aren't suited for a normal job.

And lastly, I don't believe having children is a choice. I think it is 100% instinct. We might rationalise the "choice". But I don't think it is.

Something Derec overlooks...that working in food service need not be unskilled whether or not it is underpaid. I bet Derec has all his food cooked for him by somebody he disrespects. Maybe that is why his food doesn't seem to taste so good. Disrespect for people who do work you either will not or cannot do is not a fair basis for setting a sub human salary.

 

[KeepTalking]

Because they benefit from the current status quo. They don't don't have to pay a living wage now, and they are afraid that instituting UBI would mean that they have to pay more taxes.

Good point, but something's gotta give

I agree, and something will give sooner or later. A minimum wage that is also a living wage seems like it is the most likely thing to give at this point, it is just the path of least resistance in the current political environment. The next most likely thing to happen, IMO, is the status quo remains, inequality continues to build, and the people rise up as the house of cards comes tumbling down. UBI seems a distant pipe dream, at least in the USA. I understand that some Dutch cities are talking about experimenting with UBI, but it seems that, even there, entrenched interests are doing a good job of blocking the experiment. If they do manage to institute UBI, and it works out well, perhaps sometime in the distant future the USA will try it as well, I just don't see that happening in my lifetime.

they risk having to pay an increased minimum wage and shoulder all of the increase instead of just part of it were taxes increased. I guess they are just dumdums

Known risks associated with keeping things the same are always preferable to uncertain risks associated with enacting change when one has a conservative mindset. Unfortunately, conservatives currently hold much of the power in the USA.

 

[Derec]

Something Derec overlooks...that working in food service need not be unskilled whether or not it is underpaid.

Obviously there are different levels of skill involved but there are also different levels of pay. Skilled chefs can earn quite a good living in a kitchen.
The thing with the woman in OP is that she worked crappy jobs for 16 years without either acquiring more skills in food service or seeking better employment elsewhere.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Something Derec overlooks...that working in food service need not be unskilled whether or not it is underpaid.

Obviously there are different levels of skill involved but there are also different levels of pay. Skilled chefs can earn quite a good living in a kitchen.
The thing with the woman in OP is that she worked crappy jobs for 16 years without either acquiring more skills in food service or seeking better employment elsewhere.

And you know this how?

 

[Derec]

People are different. A lot of people can't deal with normal office jobs. Some people are very interpersonal and can only have jobs where they deal directly with others. There's a massive group of people who have no analytical skills at all. It is not uncommon. Loads of people are serious language problems, and for that reason aren't suited for a normal job.

Yeah, people are different. But good jobs can be had in a variety of fields, not only in office settings and not only in analytical fields. And we know she has no major trouble with language skills.

And lastly, I don't believe having children is a choice. I think it is 100% instinct. We might rationalise the "choice". But I don't think it is.

It's definitely not 100% instinct. Rational thought can override instincts you know. If that wasn't the case, family planning would not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

And you know this how?

I read her article.