Been there, done that. As I mentioned, when we were first married my wife worked full-time at around $8.00/hour. I went to school full time and did not work. We often had to decide between food and the telephone, or between electricity and gas. This was in 1991. We did this for four years, until I graduated. During this time we built a mountain of credit card debt and student loan debt.
We also spent three years (1996-1999)without a car, because our old car broke down beyond repair (with more than $3,000 left on the loan) and we couldn’t afford a new one. For three years we commuted and shopped using public transportation or our feet.
At the present, our credit card debt is gone and our student loans are being paid down. My wife and I bring in a combined salary of, well, without getting specific, more than $60k. We aren’t rich by any stretch.
And don’t tell me there aren’t jobs in the greater Akron/Canton area that don’t pay better. We just moved to Virginia from Cleveland. In Cleveland, my wife was making more than $30k without a college degree. And I know that jobs in Akron, which isn’t that far of a commute from Canton, pay at least as well.
So, yep, I’ve tried it. I’ve gone without food, and been unable to pay bills. Did it suck? Yep. But never once did it cross my mind to “change the system.” I changed myself.
If you think that is an attack, don’t go to the Pit.
and asking someone else to give you money simply because you need it is what if not a handout?
I stand by my comments.
My experience has been similar to PLd’s. two years ago I supported myself and student wife on $30k/yr. I still have a ton of debt and am driving the same crappy car. As pld said, I changed myself, not the system. I think we must have been in school at the same time, pld.
Mr. Z., I think lunapark was drawing a distinction between asking for a handout and making a suggestion for changing the law to allocate money more fairly (as lunapark views it). Heck, if every proposed change to the legal status quo that would financially benefit the proposer counts as “asking for a handout”, then when you say your tax rate ought to be lowered that’s “asking for a handout” too.
I can certainly see how your reaction might be viewed as an “attack”, because you sometimes tend to respond to views you disagree with by disparaging the poster’s motives or character (“You want legally-mandated profit sharing? You’re just asking for a handout! You want to impose a wealth tax? You’re just jealous of the rich!”). The conservatives I respect most on this board are those who can argue against opinions they don’t share on abstract grounds of practicality, justice, or fact, without making unpleasant insinuations about their opponents’ private feelings and motivations.
no it isn’t. A handout is asking to be given someone else’s money. a tax decrease is asking to be “allowed” to keep more of your own money. IT is no more a handout than asking the burglar to not take your wedding ring.
Granted, I due get worked up when people start talking about staking claims to my money, or that of others. I do not like thieves. But I seem to recall a recent incident between you and I that makes me a little less willing to accept your criticism for this.
luna’s point was :I need more money, so corporations should give me some (and maybe be forced to do so)
Perhaps I simply should have said, in a more straightforward manner, “you are asking for charity.”
True, but I said I was sorry, and I’ll say it again: I’m sorry.
Actually, I think luna had two separate points which everyone, including her, is getting somewhat mixed up: 1) she needs more money (which she is indeed taking steps to remedy on her own, if I correctly read her post about planning to move to a new city and look for a better job); and 2) she thinks it isn’t fair for corporations to pay employees less than they’re able to live on, so they should be forced to change that practice, perhaps by mandatory profit sharing. You may or may not agree with the view expressed in point 2, but I think you should argue it on its merits without reference to how point 1 might be unduly influencing her.
Well, I did imply she was lazy, whis is clearly untrue. For that I will appologize. It had nothing to do with her argument. I commend her for being willing to move to find better work. I am 2000 miles from my hometown for work and understand the difficulty in relocating. so kudos there.
But you have to admit, as attacks go, that was about a 1 on a scale of 10.
I don’t think it’s so much that they aren’t able to live on it. Many of them can, and many of them do. It’s that they have to live on less than they think (or other people think) they are entitled to, or because some people’s sensibilities are offended by the idea that there are Americans who would work for $3.00/hour, but the government prevents them from working for that little.
Point taken, but perhaps it’s also that they can’t live on it without incurring (as your experience and Mr. Z.'s both indicate*) a “mountain of debt”? I see your point about a high minimum wage inflating the labor market, but is it necessarily better for the economy or for individuals for sub-living-wage workers to have to lean so heavily on personal indebtedness?
(There, see how much more pleasant and interesting it is when we stick to the issues? All right, all right, sorry, that was uncalled for. :))
*(Mine too; started grad school in '89 on a $7K annual stipend, which amounted to an 80% pay cut from my previous job. Was worth it, and I’ve paid off about half the debt and even managed to start retirement savings, but I sure wouldn’t go through that again.)
Yes it’s probably true, you can always find people that are willing to work for a lower price. Read the Grapes of Wrath for a good example. Eventually you will find people willing to work for food. And parents that are willing to make their children work because they need or want the money. That doesn’t mean that companies should be allowed to profit by exploiting the underprivileged.
The laws governing worker conditions (e.g. minimum wage) in the USA were intended to fix the poor conditions of workers before these laws came into effect. One might argue whether or not some of these laws are effective or not, but can someone seriously argue that workers were better off in 1910 or 1920 than they are now?
Better off how? Materially? Some are. Some aren’t.
There’s a lot more money (and material goods) out there now than there was in 1910, so you can’t make a post hoc ergo propter hoc leap that social changes (e.g. increased micro-regulation of the economy) have caused higher standards of living. You don’t know but what the economy might be much greater still than it is now had the regulations been done differently (for example, the libertarian way, which is to regulate coercion and fraud only).
Arnold, don’t you think it’s entirely possible that, for example, if fast-food restaurants or retail outlets could pay teenagers living at home with few expenses $4.00 per hour, they could then pay working mothers more?
Libertarian: better off because of, for example, no child labour, the 5-day 40-hour work week, paid vacations, etc…
pldennison: Sure, if a business owner paid teenagers $4.00 per hour, s/he presumably could pay a working mother more, but why would s/he want to? A business owner would try to maximize profits I would think.
Phil, here’s a statistic offered by the site I linked to before:
If these numbers are accurate, would cutting the minimum wage for the 1-in-14 workers who don’t really need the money make enough of a difference to provide a living wage for the other 13?
A) How is “rich family” being defined here? My sister worked at McDonald’s. We weren’t rich, but my sister’s money wasn’t being used to support the family either.
B) What’s the figure for teenagers from solidly middle-class families who just want some spending money?
C) What’s the average family size of that 40%?
Arnold: What business of mine (or yours) is it if someone wants to work for food? Volunteers are not victims. Anyhoo, sure, businesses want to maximize profits. They also want efficient workers. How many businesses might be able to hire more people to work if they weren’t required to pay everyone the same minimum starting wage?
Here’s how it’s my business: if my company could find a database administrator that wants to work for food, they would probably fire me and hire that person. And if there were hundreds of DBAs so poor as to be willing to work for food, I would have to either move or retrain myself, which is an expensive proposition for me. As I mentioned before, read the Grapes of Wrath for a popular account of how a business can profit from the poverty of a large segment of the population, to the detriment of the workers.
Yes, a business would be able to hire more people to work if they could pay them less. I’m not so sure that the people being payed less would benefit from it though. Again, look to the working conditions at the beginning of the century, and ask yourself if they would suit you.
Well, children ought not be required to provide their own keep until their parents declare they are adults anyway. As for 5-day 40-hour work weeks and paid vacations, I’m afraid we’re on the downside of that butt curve. At least I know I am, as are most software developers I know.
I’m blown away that some of you think minimum wage workers are all teenagers living at home with few expenses.
Who do you think works the day shift? I worked in several retail jobs, and just in my experience there was only a few high school kids and they worked part-time. The 9-5, 12-8 etc. shifts were usually mothers in their 30s and 40s. One of the high school girls that was working with me was saving up money for college.
