Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[Utilitarian]

It's a bad thing if what they're doing isn't WORTH a tad more. You think business owners don't have other things to do with that money? As the left is fond of trumpeting when telling us how we don't need "eeevil corporations", the vast majority of employers in this country are small or mid-sized businesses.

Your employer is not your parent, and is in no way obligated to take care of your life problems for you. Grow up.

Are you interested in discussing this further, or are you here simply to be pedantic?

We very much are trying to discuss. We're trying to figure out why it is some here believe it is the obligation of one's employer to provide your basic needs.

Well, if it's any comfort, there's a good chance that very few employers will be providing much in the way of benefits in the near future.

 

[JRK]

Ambition is relative. However, it's an interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, what percentage of the population do you believe is as ambitious as I've indicated?

Actually a relative small percentage I think. There is already a degree of dog/cat fighting to claw your way to the top and only a few have the talent or stamina or appetite for that. And many are simply not emotionally suited to occupy those top spots where you constantly have people gunning for your job or to take you down because they don't like you.

I am of a temperament that I am never satisfied with where I am. Some would call it a strong work ethic. Other would call it compulsive obsessive behavior. I suspect there may be a bit of both in there, but once I master a job and get to the point I can do it fairly effortlessly, if there is nowhere to go, I will invariably start expanding the job on my own. That has gotten me into trouble at times. But usually it has netted me promotions or enhanced my resume enough that I could move up somewhere else.

But there really are people who are happy as clams doing their routine jobs effectively and efficiently and really have no desire to do anything else.

I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy.

If your assumption is true, then basically, we can look forward shortly to a major fall in standard of living. I already believe that we're in decline, but the decline will be much faster in an environment where only a small percentage of people are willing to advance in skill.

If the only thing really keeping people motivated is desperation, we can expect the bottom of the pay scale to plummet.

I have been in the heavy industrial management sector for 25 years. Its not even on the same planet it was 15 years ago
I cannot put words to the absolute lack of character, knowledge, and team work that exists today

 

[Foxfyre]

Ambition is relative. However, it's an interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, what percentage of the population do you believe is as ambitious as I've indicated?

Actually a relative small percentage I think. There is already a degree of dog/cat fighting to claw your way to the top and only a few have the talent or stamina or appetite for that. And many are simply not emotionally suited to occupy those top spots where you constantly have people gunning for your job or to take you down because they don't like you.

I am of a temperament that I am never satisfied with where I am. Some would call it a strong work ethic. Other would call it compulsive obsessive behavior. I suspect there may be a bit of both in there, but once I master a job and get to the point I can do it fairly effortlessly, if there is nowhere to go, I will invariably start expanding the job on my own. That has gotten me into trouble at times. But usually it has netted me promotions or enhanced my resume enough that I could move up somewhere else.

But there really are people who are happy as clams doing their routine jobs effectively and efficiently and really have no desire to do anything else.

I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy.

If your assumption is true, then basically, we can look forward shortly to a major fall in standard of living. I already believe that we're in decline, but the decline will be much faster in an environment where only a small percentage of people are willing to advance in skill.

If the only thing really keeping people motivated is desperation, we can expect the bottom of the pay scale to plummet.

I'm sure that is what you have been taught and have even read in skewed and flawed accounts of history.

It's a phenomenon as old as recorded history. You can go back to Old Testament times to read of a people who had all their needs provided by the work of their hands and a benevolent God--that is how they saw it--but still thought their lives would be easier and better if they had a king to manage everything and make everybody behave as they should. The motif is repeated again and again: "And there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes." So the people clamored for a king. And it didn't solve their problems.

The Founders gave us the first nation since Biblical times that has no king or authoritarian government that assigns what rights the people will have. And for the first roughly hundreda and fifty years or so we had the most free, most generous, most innovative, most creative, most prosperous people the world had ever known.

But still there are those who "clamor for a king" who will manage society, assign the rights, obligations, and responsibilities that the people will have, and think that will somehow make our lives better.

It won't.

 

[Utilitarian]

Actually a relative small percentage I think. There is already a degree of dog/cat fighting to claw your way to the top and only a few have the talent or stamina or appetite for that. And many are simply not emotionally suited to occupy those top spots where you constantly have people gunning for your job or to take you down because they don't like you.

I am of a temperament that I am never satisfied with where I am. Some would call it a strong work ethic. Other would call it compulsive obsessive behavior. I suspect there may be a bit of both in there, but once I master a job and get to the point I can do it fairly effortlessly, if there is nowhere to go, I will invariably start expanding the job on my own. That has gotten me into trouble at times. But usually it has netted me promotions or enhanced my resume enough that I could move up somewhere else.

But there really are people who are happy as clams doing their routine jobs effectively and efficiently and really have no desire to do anything else.

I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy.

If your assumption is true, then basically, we can look forward shortly to a major fall in standard of living. I already believe that we're in decline, but the decline will be much faster in an environment where only a small percentage of people are willing to advance in skill.

If the only thing really keeping people motivated is desperation, we can expect the bottom of the pay scale to plummet.

I have been in the heavy industrial management sector for 25 years. Its not even on the same planet it was 15 years ago
I cannot put words to the absolute lack of character, knowledge, and team work that exists today

I'll put it this way.... The day that I believe this will be the day that I leave this country.

If the majority is too lacking in ambition to advance themselves, then that's not a country worth fighting for or even living in.

 

[Utilitarian]

I'm sure that is what you have been taught and have even read in skewed and flawed accounts of history.

It's a phenomenon as old as recorded history. You can go back to Old Testament times to read of a people who had all their needs provided by the work of their hands and a benevolent God--that is how they saw it--but still thought their lives would be easier and better if they had a king to manage everything and make everybody behave as they should. The motif is repeated again and again: "And there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes." So the people clamored for a king. And it didn't solve their problems.

The Founders gave us the first nation since Biblical times that has no king or authoritarian government that assigns what rights the people will have. And for the first roughly hundreda and fifty years or so we had the most free, most generous, most innovative, most creative, most prosperous people the world had ever known.

But still there are those who "clamor for a king" who will manage society, assign the rights, obligations, and responsibilities that the people will have, and think that will somehow make our lives better.

It won't.

I'll put it this way. My understanding of history is a lot less Amerocentric.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure that is what you have been taught and have even read in skewed and flawed accounts of history.

It's a phenomenon as old as recorded history. You can go back to Old Testament times to read of a people who had all their needs provided by the work of their hands and a benevolent God--that is how they saw it--but still thought their lives would be easier and better if they had a king to manage everything and make everybody behave as they should. The motif is repeated again and again: "And there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes." So the people clamored for a king. And it didn't solve their problems.

The Founders gave us the first nation since Biblical times that has no king or authoritarian government that assigns what rights the people will have. And for the first roughly hundreda and fifty years or so we had the most free, most generous, most innovative, most creative, most prosperous people the world had ever known.

But still there are those who "clamor for a king" who will manage society, assign the rights, obligations, and responsibilities that the people will have, and think that will somehow make our lives better.

It won't.

I'll put it this way. My understanding of history is a lot less Amerocentric.

Well, I was not entirely responsive to your thesis which was:
"I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy."

I believe your thesis is flawed in that most people are NOT happy with a rather low income despite being 'comfy' but a percentage of folks always have been happy with that and probably always will.

The problem comes with those who aren't happy with their rather low income who do not look to themselves to remedy that but rather look to somebody else; i.e. the government, or the 'rich', or the system or whatever to remedy that.

Those are the ones who clamor for a 'king' to save them from their plight.

Those who love freedom don't expect others to provide for them but expect to do what they have to do to provide for themselves.

It's all in the social psyche. Some value individual liberty. And some value the herd mentality.

I beliee Americans overall are probably less inclined to appreciate a 'herd mentality' than are many Europeans, Africans, and Asians.

 

[Bern80]

Are you interested in discussing this further, or are you here simply to be pedantic?

We very much are trying to discuss. We're trying to figure out why it is some here believe it is the obligation of one's employer to provide your basic needs.

Well, if it's any comfort, there's a good chance that very few employers will be providing much in the way of benefits in the near future.

On that you're wrong. But if you could quit dodging, grow a pair, and directly respond to the point we might get somewhere in this discussion you want to have so badly. Why is it that you seem to think it is the responsibility of your employer to provide for your basic needs?

 

[Utilitarian]

I'm sure that is what you have been taught and have even read in skewed and flawed accounts of history.

It's a phenomenon as old as recorded history. You can go back to Old Testament times to read of a people who had all their needs provided by the work of their hands and a benevolent God--that is how they saw it--but still thought their lives would be easier and better if they had a king to manage everything and make everybody behave as they should. The motif is repeated again and again: "And there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes." So the people clamored for a king. And it didn't solve their problems.

The Founders gave us the first nation since Biblical times that has no king or authoritarian government that assigns what rights the people will have. And for the first roughly hundreda and fifty years or so we had the most free, most generous, most innovative, most creative, most prosperous people the world had ever known.

But still there are those who "clamor for a king" who will manage society, assign the rights, obligations, and responsibilities that the people will have, and think that will somehow make our lives better.

It won't.

I'll put it this way. My understanding of history is a lot less Amerocentric.

Well, I was not entirely responsive to your thesis which was:
"I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy."

I believe your thesis is flawed in that most people are NOT happy with a rather low income despite being 'comfy' but a percentage of folks always have been happy with that and probably always will.

The problem comes with those who aren't happy with their rather low income who do not look to themselves to remedy that but rather look to somebody else; i.e. the government, or the 'rich', or the system or whatever to remedy that.

Those are the ones who clamor for a 'king' to save them from their plight.

Those who love freedom don't expect others to provide for them but expect to do what they have to do to provide for themselves.

It's all in the social psyche. Some value individual liberty. And some value the herd mentality.

I beliee Americans overall are probably less inclined to appreciate a 'herd mentality' than are many Europeans, Africans, and Asians.

Perhaps so, but there is something to be said about tightly knit communities.

Some of the fastest growing economies are in countries where the emphasis is less on the individual and more on community and the "common good."

I think the further we go towards pure individualism, the more we'll see abuses by the elite.

 

[Utilitarian]

We very much are trying to discuss. We're trying to figure out why it is some here believe it is the obligation of one's employer to provide your basic needs.

Well, if it's any comfort, there's a good chance that very few employers will be providing much in the way of benefits in the near future.

On that you're wrong. But if you could quit dodging, grow a pair, and directly respond to the point we might get somewhere in this discussion you want to have so badly. Why is it that you seem to think it is the responsibility of your employer to provide for your basic needs?

With a tone like that, I have no desire to discuss anything with you.

 

[JRK]

Has it occurred to you that ambition is not a universal trait? It is not, as far as I can see, even a terribly common one. And, of course, not everyone has the SAME ambitions.

Ambition is relative. However, it's an interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, what percentage of the population do you believe is as ambitious as I've indicated?

Actually a relative small percentage I think. There is already a degree of dog/cat fighting to claw your way to the top and only a few have the talent or stamina or appetite for that. And many are simply not emotionally suited to occupy those top spots where you constantly have people gunning for your job or to take you down because they don't like you.

I am of a temperament that I am never satisfied with where I am. Some would call it a strong work ethic. Other would call it compulsive obsessive behavior. I suspect there may be a bit of both in there, but once I master a job and get to the point I can do it fairly effortlessly, if there is nowhere to go, I will invariably start expanding the job on my own. That has gotten me into trouble at times. But usually it has netted me promotions or enhanced my resume enough that I could move up somewhere else.

But there really are people who are happy as clams doing their routine jobs effectively and efficiently and really have no desire to do anything else.

I clawed my way to the top during the boom years of the late 90s and early 2000s. By the time the IRS got done (Clinton rate) along with the non stop, every-day expectations and with the class of people you end up having around you, let us just say I did not like it and have sense quit doing that and now work at a much lower position.
The class of people and the taxes was my biggest issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I could live off of my current salary for the rest of my life, but I still want to move up in my company.

My comfort level is pretty high, but that doesn't eliminate my ambition.

Has it occurred to you that ambition is not a universal trait? It is not, as far as I can see, even a terribly common one. And, of course, not everyone has the SAME ambitions.

Ambition is relative. However, it's an interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, what percentage of the population do you believe is as ambitious as I've indicated?

How in the hell would I know? Probably not very many. Most people actually don't want to be rich, beyond pleasant fantasies of winning the lottery. They just want a reliable income, preferably from doing something they don't hate, that allows them a home, food, utilities, and a few luxuries. Others are ambitious insofar as they have a specific thing they want to do or place they want to be in life, many times with money only a tangential component of said ambition. I have several friends, male and female, whose real ambition in life is to be married and have kids, and they see work and money as merely a a means to funding that goal. There are others who just want to have a small business that's self-supporting, and they'll be happy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A certain amount of accountability is vital in every society, but shit happens.

There are 30 year olds working minimum wage jobs. Sometimes people make dumb decisions. They pay for it by working a job like that, but my point is that paying them just a tad more isn't a bad thing.

The comment was made earlier that if a living wage was the same as minimum wage, there would be no motivation to move up, but that's not true for about 95% of the population. Almost no one wants to work that kind of job for the long term, even if they can live off of it.

It's a bad thing if what they're doing isn't WORTH a tad more. You think business owners don't have other things to do with that money? As the left is fond of trumpeting when telling us how we don't need "eeevil corporations", the vast majority of employers in this country are small or mid-sized businesses.

Your employer is not your parent, and is in no way obligated to take care of your life problems for you. Grow up.

Are you interested in discussing this further, or are you here simply to be pedantic?

Do you have any idea what "pedantic" means? Because nothing I said qualifies.

I'm not sure how much further one CAN discuss this. What else is there to say beyond the painfully obvious fact that employers are not responsible for your problems; they are consumers purchasing the commodity of your service?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy.

If your assumption is true, then basically, we can look forward shortly to a major fall in standard of living. I already believe that we're in decline, but the decline will be much faster in an environment where only a small percentage of people are willing to advance in skill.

If the only thing really keeping people motivated is desperation, we can expect the bottom of the pay scale to plummet.

I have been in the heavy industrial management sector for 25 years. Its not even on the same planet it was 15 years ago
I cannot put words to the absolute lack of character, knowledge, and team work that exists today

I'll put it this way.... The day that I believe this will be the day that I leave this country.

If the majority is too lacking in ambition to advance themselves, then that's not a country worth fighting for or even living in.

Because you believe the majority MUST be ambitious according to your dictates? You apparently (and mistakenly) believe that was the case in the past.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll put it this way. My understanding of history is a lot less Amerocentric.

Well, I was not entirely responsive to your thesis which was:
"I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy."

I believe your thesis is flawed in that most people are NOT happy with a rather low income despite being 'comfy' but a percentage of folks always have been happy with that and probably always will.

The problem comes with those who aren't happy with their rather low income who do not look to themselves to remedy that but rather look to somebody else; i.e. the government, or the 'rich', or the system or whatever to remedy that.

Those are the ones who clamor for a 'king' to save them from their plight.

Those who love freedom don't expect others to provide for them but expect to do what they have to do to provide for themselves.

It's all in the social psyche. Some value individual liberty. And some value the herd mentality.

I beliee Americans overall are probably less inclined to appreciate a 'herd mentality' than are many Europeans, Africans, and Asians.

Perhaps so, but there is something to be said about tightly knit communities.

Some of the fastest growing economies are in countries where the emphasis is less on the individual and more on community and the "common good."

I think the further we go towards pure individualism, the more we'll see abuses by the elite.

You know why those are the fastest growing economies? Two reasons. One, they've gotten away from the "common good" bullshit some and embraced capitalism to some degree. Two, they had nowhere to go but up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, if it's any comfort, there's a good chance that very few employers will be providing much in the way of benefits in the near future.

On that you're wrong. But if you could quit dodging, grow a pair, and directly respond to the point we might get somewhere in this discussion you want to have so badly. Why is it that you seem to think it is the responsibility of your employer to provide for your basic needs?

With a tone like that, I have no desire to discuss anything with you.

You can always count on leftists, when you pin them down with a direct question, to get huffy about "the tone" and flounce off in high dudgeon so they don't have to answer. What I don't understand is who they think is still being fooled by this threadbare dodge.

 

[JRK]

Another way to identify the Lib in the crowd is the attempt to spin the issue into a cosmic trail of BS. The question was simple
You hear the Left scream we need a living wage, what is it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I was not entirely responsive to your thesis which was:
"I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy."

I believe your thesis is flawed in that most people are NOT happy with a rather low income despite being 'comfy' but a percentage of folks always have been happy with that and probably always will.

The problem comes with those who aren't happy with their rather low income who do not look to themselves to remedy that but rather look to somebody else; i.e. the government, or the 'rich', or the system or whatever to remedy that.

Those are the ones who clamor for a 'king' to save them from their plight.

Those who love freedom don't expect others to provide for them but expect to do what they have to do to provide for themselves.

It's all in the social psyche. Some value individual liberty. And some value the herd mentality.

I beliee Americans overall are probably less inclined to appreciate a 'herd mentality' than are many Europeans, Africans, and Asians.

Perhaps so, but there is something to be said about tightly knit communities.

Some of the fastest growing economies are in countries where the emphasis is less on the individual and more on community and the "common good."

I think the further we go towards pure individualism, the more we'll see abuses by the elite.

You know why those are the fastest growing economies? Two reasons. One, they've gotten away from the "common good" bullshit some and embraced capitalism to some degree. Two, they had nowhere to go but up.

Add to that the fact that they continue to have some of the poorest people in the world because only a privileged few are chosen to benefit and there is no effort to make the nation more prosperous for everybody. And, of course, those who prosper the most are those in government. It's sort of like we're seeing here as we allow government to take more and more power.

 

[Bern80]

Well, if it's any comfort, there's a good chance that very few employers will be providing much in the way of benefits in the near future.

On that you're wrong. But if you could quit dodging, grow a pair, and directly respond to the point we might get somewhere in this discussion you want to have so badly. Why is it that you seem to think it is the responsibility of your employer to provide for your basic needs?

With a tone like that, I have no desire to discuss anything with you.

Yet another cop out. You said you wanted to discuss something. When I attempted discuss what you said you wanted to discuss you ignored it. Pardon me for calling you out on it.

 

[JRK]

Why the govt combines UE with welfare I do not understand as there is monies provided by corporations to pay for UE, but any-way

$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

That is how much we spent in 2007 on an item that would be where if we had a living wage in this country above the level in which it would eliminate welfare

 

[francoHFW]

Still $11, equivalent of 1968's min wage.