Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[Wry Catcher]

LOL, Yep, you are an asshole, and I'll explain one reason why. You failed (lied by omissiion) tp put my comment in context. If one reads post 247 they'll understand. Short of that, here's the germane part:
.
You: "I didn't ask for something I learned about in high school, I asked for a fixed, definite number. Or are you incapable of counting past the number 10?"

Me: It's no wonder you can't get a job, few employers want to hire assholes."

You somehow think me putting your post "in context" makes what you said any different.

I know it does.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's no wonder you can't get a job, few employers want to hire assholes.

Now, I wonder what that had to do with my argument or yours? Well? What do you care about employment? Wouldn't you rather me be on government assistance instead, like a good American should?

You moron.

LOL, nice rebuttal, Didn't you write a bit earlier that you couldn't get a job?

No, I said I got three. I am fully well capable of work. But as everyone no doubt knows, I am bipolar. A major disqualifier. I'm quite certain I could work someone like you under a table or two.

You don't even know me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL, Yep, you are an asshole, and I'll explain one reason why. You failed (lied by omissiion) tp put my comment in context. If one reads post 247 they'll understand. Short of that, here's the germane part:
.
You: "I didn't ask for something I learned about in high school, I asked for a fixed, definite number. Or are you incapable of counting past the number 10?"

Me: It's no wonder you can't get a job, few employers want to hire assholes."

You somehow think me putting your post "in context" makes what you said any different.

I know it does.

No it doesn't. Calling me names and insulting my lack of employment is quite self explanatory. It explains why you don't have a substantive argument.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A "living wage" is not a "fixed, definite" number, it's an abstract number, dependent on many additional variables

I know that, Doc.

Those variables make a "living wage" impossible to obtain. A "living wage" one day isn't "living wage" the next. The term "living wage" is too absolute a term. I figured since people were demanding $15 an hour, that this would be considered a "living wage" to someone such as Wry.

The term is usually defined to mean the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment.

Like I said. Too absolute. But my issue is with able bodied individuals on government assistance who don't earn this "living wage." Welfare checks cannot support a full family on its own. Either they supplement that with a part time job, or they live in government funded housing, and in some cases abject poverty until need drives them to find meaningful employment.

Minimum wage and a living wage are not the same thing. And Wry understands much better than you that a living wage in San Francisco is much much higher than $15/hour. My income if over six figures and I would be house poor if I purchased a home in The City (SF) with the same lot size and sq. footage as my home in the East Bay. My rental, with a 1/2 acre lot, if in The City would be worth well over 1 million dollars.

BTW, do your homework and learn the difference between AFDC and TANF.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's no wonder you can't get a job, few employers want to hire assholes.

Now, I wonder what that had to do with my argument or yours? Well? What do you care about employment? Wouldn't you rather me be on government assistance instead, like a good American should?

You moron.

LOL, nice rebuttal, Didn't you write a bit earlier that you couldn't get a job?

No, I said I got three. I am fully well capable of work. But as everyone no doubt knows, I am bipolar, a major disqualifier. I'm quite certain I could work someone like you under a table or two.

You don't even know me.

You're correct, I don't know you. And you don't know me or anything about the region in which I live.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A "living wage" is not a "fixed, definite" number, it's an abstract number, dependent on many additional variables

I know that, Doc.

Those variables make a "living wage" impossible to obtain. A "living wage" one day isn't "living wage" the next. The term "living wage" is too absolute a term. I figured since people were demanding $15 an hour, that this would be considered a "living wage" to someone such as Wry.

The term is usually defined to mean the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment.

Like I said. Too absolute. But my issue is with able bodied individuals on government assistance who don't earn this "living wage." Welfare checks cannot support a full family on its own. Either they supplement that with a part time job, or they live in government funded housing, and in some cases abject poverty until need drives them to find meaningful employment.

Minimum wage and a living wage are not the same thing. And Wry understands much better than you that a living wage in San Francisco is much much higher than $15/hour. My income if over six figures and I would be house poor if I purchased a home in The City (SF) with the same lot size and sq. footage as my home in the East Bay. My rental, with a 1/2 acre lot, if in The City would be worth well over 1 million dollars.

BTW, do your homework and learn the difference between AFDC and TANF.

1:

"My income is over six figures"

So why are you concerned about "living wage?" Seems as if you're living quite high off the hog. You're rich. Why should you get any say in this? Better yet, I'm poor, give me some of your money. You can PM me with your account details.

...

Well as you can see, and assuming your reaction, you wouldn't dream of doing something so... altruistic.


2:

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're correct, I don't know you. And you don't know me or anything about the region in which I live.

I don't want to know you. If you are in real life what you are on this board, then I pity those whom associate themselves with you. Your immaturity is pervasive, Wry. Even though Doc and I disagree on a great deal many subjects, he and I can find the room to treat each other with respect.

I don't care if you live on Mars. But then again, that would explain your detachment from this reality. You can't use your region's economic indicators as a measurement of the overall economic indicators governing the United States.

Besides, I've been wanting to try the new automated ordering system McDonald's is putting out.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

Okay... so why the push to raise the minimum wage? If living wage is what is needed over minimum wage per hour for an individual to support his family, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume, at 15 bucks an hour, the "living wage" would be higher than that? The number seems to rise in lockstep with changes to minimum wage, does it not?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Beware, I'm typing on my mobile phone. Clarity and punctuation are not guaranteed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

Okay... so why the push to raise the minimum wage? If living wage is what is needed over minimum wage per hour for an individual to support his family, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume, at 15 bucks an hour, the "living wage" would be higher than that? The number seems to rise in lockstep with changes to minimum wage, does it not?

No, it doesn't "rise in lockstep" with the minimum wage - that's the whole point. Other than both describing bottom-end wages, the two terms have entirely different meanings.

$15 an hour is more than a "living wage" in some places, and less in others.

For example, if I made $15 an hour full time, that works out to around $30,000 per year. If my rent is only $500 a month ($6000 a year), then that $15 an hour goes a long way, and you could consider that well above a "living wage". On the other hand, if my rent is $2000 a month, that $30,000 a year would go almost entirely to rent, making $15 an hour decidedly less than a "living wage".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

"Living wage" laws do exist in some places, but they generally only apply to government jobs. A formula based on cost-of-living is used.

 

[sealybobo]

I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism.

Owners don't produce anything their employees do.

And funny you want workers to vote with you when this is how you feel about workers? **** you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

Okay... so why the push to raise the minimum wage? If living wage is what is needed over minimum wage per hour for an individual to support his family, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume, at 15 bucks an hour, the "living wage" would be higher than that? The number seems to rise in lockstep with changes to minimum wage, does it not?

No, it doesn't "rise in lockstep" with the minimum wage - that's the whole point. Other than both describing bottom-end wages, the two terms have entirely different meanings.

$15 an hour is more than a "living wage" in some places, and less in others.

For example, if I made $15 an hour full time, that works out to around $30,000 per year. If my rent is only $500 a month ($6000 a year), then that $15 an hour goes a long way, and you could consider that well above a "living wage". On the other hand, if my rent is $2000 a month, that $30,000 a year would go almost entirely to rent, making $15 an hour decidedly less than a "living wage".

My question would be to the guy paying 2000 bucks a month for rent is this...

Why? Why are you renting from this person?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

Okay... so why the push to raise the minimum wage? If living wage is what is needed over minimum wage per hour for an individual to support his family, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume, at 15 bucks an hour, the "living wage" would be higher than that? The number seems to rise in lockstep with changes to minimum wage, does it not?

No, it doesn't "rise in lockstep" with the minimum wage - that's the whole point. Other than both describing bottom-end wages, the two terms have entirely different meanings.

$15 an hour is more than a "living wage" in some places, and less in others.

For example, if I made $15 an hour full time, that works out to around $30,000 per year. If my rent is only $500 a month ($6000 a year), then that $15 an hour goes a long way, and you could consider that well above a "living wage". On the other hand, if my rent is $2000 a month, that $30,000 a year would go almost entirely to rent, making $15 an hour decidedly less than a "living wage".

My question would be to the guy paying 2000 bucks a month for rent is this...

Why? Why are you renting from this person?

I pay more than $2000 a month in rent, for a relatively small apartment. That's just how much it costs here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I pay more than $2000 a month in rent, for a relatively small apartment. That's just how much it costs here.

That's terrible. Damn.

So, how can someone making 15 bucks an our eke out a living wage paying that much in rent? Wouldn't we be better served finding ways to lower the rent first before demanding a "living wage?" This guy comes to mind (being purely satirical here):

 

[David_42]

I pay more than $2000 a month in rent, for a relatively small apartment. That's just how much it costs here.

That's terrible. Damn.

So, how can someone making 15 bucks an our eke out a living wage paying that much in rent? Wouldn't we be better served finding ways to lower the rent first before demanding a "living wage?" This guy comes to mind (being purely satirical here):

How do we lower the rent? Realistically. Many different ideas..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I pay more than $2000 a month in rent, for a relatively small apartment. That's just how much it costs here.

That's terrible. Damn.

So, how can someone making 15 bucks an our eke out a living wage paying that much in rent? Wouldn't we be better served finding ways to lower the rent first before demanding a "living wage?" This guy comes to mind (being purely satirical here):

How do you suggest lowering the rent?

I was at that debate, by the way.

 

[David_42]

I pay more than $2000 a month in rent, for a relatively small apartment. That's just how much it costs here.

That's terrible. Damn.

So, how can someone making 15 bucks an our eke out a living wage paying that much in rent? Wouldn't we be better served finding ways to lower the rent first before demanding a "living wage?" This guy comes to mind (being purely satirical here):

How do you suggest lowering the rent?

I was at that debate, by the way.

*cough* government *cough*