Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[JRK]

Not all jobs require the payment of a living wage, but a supplementary wage. Students, older people looking to supplement pensions, part timers who have other jobs, husbands or wives looking for a little extra. They don't need a living wage. They can benefit an employer and benefit themselves at the same time.

If each employee has a value, each job has a value. Each task has a value. When an artificial mandate is enacted to raise getting the task done beyond the value of that task, an employer won't pay it, find another way, get someone to work under the table, do something else. They just won't pay that mandated wage.

We are paying a mandated wage now
you ever heard of Bacon Davis?
you know what a union is?
Look this whole discussion has found its end to me. I am very surprised at the rights the employer has over the employee with some on this message board.
Every union in this country has a mandated wage and there are 1000s of companies that pay it daily.
If you work on a federally funded project you will pay Bacon Davis wages. There are thousands of companies viaing for that work and have no problem with it
The last project I was assigned too was a union project. Just to bid on the job you had to hire union employees and pay union wages

 

[Katzndogz]

Not all jobs require the payment of a living wage, but a supplementary wage. Students, older people looking to supplement pensions, part timers who have other jobs, husbands or wives looking for a little extra. They don't need a living wage. They can benefit an employer and benefit themselves at the same time.

If each employee has a value, each job has a value. Each task has a value. When an artificial mandate is enacted to raise getting the task done beyond the value of that task, an employer won't pay it, find another way, get someone to work under the table, do something else. They just won't pay that mandated wage.

We are paying a mandated wage now
you ever heard of Bacon Davis?
you know what a union is?
Look this whole discussion has found its end to me. I am very surprised at the rights the employer has over the employee with some on this message board.
Every union in this country has a mandated wage and there are 1000s of companies that pay it daily.
If you work on a federally funded project you will pay Bacon Davis wages. There are thousands of companies viaing for that work and have no problem with it
The last project I was assigned too was a union project. Just to bid on the job you had to hire union employees and pay union wages

Neither union wages nor Davis Bacon wages are paid universally. The hamburger stand down the street doesn't pay Davis Bacon, the hair stylist doesn't have a union member sweeping up hair.

 

[kwc57]

If either of you understood economics and stopped and listened to what I have said. It is not about the employer. He could care less what he pays for my service as long as he an make a profit on it
If every-one has to pay a minimum of 12.50 an hour, then by golly every-one is going to keep doing the very same thing there doing today and making the same % profit
but lets dont do that

Lets make sure we spend 500 billion every yea subsidizing those people who make 15,000 a year so, well I have no idea why would we would keep doing that
you keep trying to tell me its not the employer place to pay someone for a good days work, well your right with many people it looks to me

For the life of me, I don't see why you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. There are several issues with what you propose. You get upset over the number of people and the amount spent on welfare. I do too. The government shouldn't be in that business in the first place. But all you want to do is shift the money collected thru taxes that is being handed over to folks on welfare to an employer to hand to someone doing even the most menial unskilled labor. How the hell does it make sense? Quit collecting taxes to support welfare and instead force companies to hand out the checks as a replacement. I understand that you think there is a difference bacause these people will have "jobs", but what you don't understand is that many businesses won't offer these jobs. Your next logical step is to force ABC company to hire X number of people and pay them this set amount per hour. You don't think that is crazy? You do indeed want an employer to be responsible for providing for your needs. An employer has a business model and has determined what he can pay for an particular job based on a large number of factors. YOU, just like a business owner have a product you are selling. It is your time, experience, skill and abilities. Whether you realize it or not, each time you interview for a job, you are selling your product and negoiating a price they are willing to pay and you are willing to accept. In certain businesses and circumstances, the business has a set price they can afford in their business plan to offer you. You on the other side of the table have to take responsibility for yourself and look at YOUR personal needs and whether their offer will satisfy them. If they do, you take the job. If they don't, you thank them and look elsewhere. The other option is to say that isn't enough and maybe if you're lucky, they'll bump it up. Most likely they will tell you they can't afford to pay that much.

I never said to force anyone to do one thing, and this employer providing my needs, I have no idea where that came from, I never have said it, The one who is fixated on the employer owning everything said that
I make 6 figures a year
I run multi million dollar projects
My sector does no have this problem

you pass a drug test, you show up every day, you do what your told
we will pay you 11.00 an hour minimum, pay 75% of your ins and offer you a 48 hour work week
I have no idea why anyone thinks that a 12.50 an hour minimum wage harms the employer, he is just going to charge enough to cover those cost and make his/her profit

This thing has found a place were we can agree to dis agree
Its a mess here
its working in Australia
I have no idea why I think its a good idea and what confuses me the most is how we found a place in which I stated the employer owes anybody anything
The federal law mandates a minimum wage, according to others that is to much and I need a class in economics. I think the correct word is a class in CASH FLOW

You need to read posts a little closer and quit getting your panties in a bunch. I never said you said to force anyone to do anything. I said that with what you propose, that is the next logical step. First you force a company to offer a "living wage". Then when companies can't afford to pay it and don't hire people, what do you do to get people these jobs? The only thing left would be to tell companies who they have to hire. I made the point to show you how silly your idea is.....because that is where it would lead.

And while you might not have said the exact words, all of your posts point to an employer being required to pay this elusive "living wage" regardless of skill or aboilty and based purely on thie "need". That is what you keep endorsing. And that means that the employer is handed a responsibility of paying you what you think your need is instead of what the job is worth. If that isn't what you mean, you've wasted a lot of time doing a poor job of explaining yourself. Find a better way to say what you mean, because there are a lot of people hearing you say what you claim you are not saying.

 

[Bern80]

I'm pretty sure I see JRK's point of view (and he can correct me if I'm wrong).

In a society there will always be winners and losers. The winners can take care of themselves no problem. But the losers for whatever reason, can't or won't.

Now being that we're a civilized country, we're not going to let the losers live in abject squallor nor are they just going to disappear; they're going to be taken care of one way or the other. So either the business community can pay them a decent "living wage" or we taxpayers can foot the bill for their upkeep.

Either way, it's going to cost us what it costs us.

And there's no way around it.

I don't have a problem with helping those that can't. I really don't. It's those who won't that I can't abide. Those who aren't willing to help themselves FIRST, don't deserve help from anyone else.

 

[Bern80]

How many people? Use division.

So a single mother should get paid more for the same job than a single individual simply because they need more? Yeah that'll work out great.

Geography? Does not matter.

Yes it does because the amount required to live on is not the same in L.A. as it is in Oklahoma.

You don't need a living wage? You are not alive.

Not everyone does no. Teenagers in their first jobs don't need enough to live on. People who just want some supplmental income don't need enough to live on.

 

[thereisnospoon]

States have their own minimum wage, the fed sets mim. wage standards so that companies like Walmart and other larger corporations don't get into the habit of paying someone $3.35 an hour and getting away with it. However, corporations still use discrimination tactics, even after the Ledbetter Law was signed into being. Ask any woman who works for big corporations and they'll tell you they're still underpaid compared to their male counterparts.

And they'd be full of shit.

Now if you're here in the U.S.A. illegally, employers can pay you whatever the **** they want to.
BTW, if anyone (righty) thinks a burger flipper can own a car, a home, and provide for a family on current wage standards, I know of some armadillo land in Texas near the N-head Perry ranch for sale. cheap.

We never said a burger flipper could have a family and luxuries on his salary, and if you thought we did, you're dumber than I currently think you are. What we said was, "Why would anyone think they SHOULD have all those things on a burger flipper's salary? Why would anyone be TRYING to?"

The point these Lefties are trying ot make is they think that since low wage low skilled people are quite possibly going to spend their working careers at these low wage jobs. The Lefties are pushing for these people to be paid wages of much higher skilled and experienced people. The one thing they refuse to acknowledge is employees wages are calculated based on the value of that position to the employer. It's called "paying an appropriate wage".
This other nonsense that Lefties spew about companies willingness to pay the lowest wages possible is a bunch of crap.
A few factors drive wages. One is the marketplace. If a company moves into a city where the workers they wish to hire need highly skilled people, that new entry will offer attractive wages to recruit people from other companies in the area. In times of higher unemployment it basically becomes a "buyers market"..In such environments, wages tend to fall.
No company management in it's right mind would suppress wages within it's walls because other employers would simply recruit away all of the workers from the cheapskate employer.

 

[JRK]

For the life of me, I don't see why you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. There are several issues with what you propose. You get upset over the number of people and the amount spent on welfare. I do too. The government shouldn't be in that business in the first place. But all you want to do is shift the money collected thru taxes that is being handed over to folks on welfare to an employer to hand to someone doing even the most menial unskilled labor. How the hell does it make sense? Quit collecting taxes to support welfare and instead force companies to hand out the checks as a replacement. I understand that you think there is a difference bacause these people will have "jobs", but what you don't understand is that many businesses won't offer these jobs. Your next logical step is to force ABC company to hire X number of people and pay them this set amount per hour. You don't think that is crazy? You do indeed want an employer to be responsible for providing for your needs. An employer has a business model and has determined what he can pay for an particular job based on a large number of factors. YOU, just like a business owner have a product you are selling. It is your time, experience, skill and abilities. Whether you realize it or not, each time you interview for a job, you are selling your product and negoiating a price they are willing to pay and you are willing to accept. In certain businesses and circumstances, the business has a set price they can afford in their business plan to offer you. You on the other side of the table have to take responsibility for yourself and look at YOUR personal needs and whether their offer will satisfy them. If they do, you take the job. If they don't, you thank them and look elsewhere. The other option is to say that isn't enough and maybe if you're lucky, they'll bump it up. Most likely they will tell you they can't afford to pay that much.

I never said to force anyone to do one thing, and this employer providing my needs, I have no idea where that came from, I never have said it, The one who is fixated on the employer owning everything said that
I make 6 figures a year
I run multi million dollar projects
My sector does no have this problem

you pass a drug test, you show up every day, you do what your told
we will pay you 11.00 an hour minimum, pay 75% of your ins and offer you a 48 hour work week
I have no idea why anyone thinks that a 12.50 an hour minimum wage harms the employer, he is just going to charge enough to cover those cost and make his/her profit

This thing has found a place were we can agree to dis agree
Its a mess here
its working in Australia
I have no idea why I think its a good idea and what confuses me the most is how we found a place in which I stated the employer owes anybody anything
The federal law mandates a minimum wage, according to others that is to much and I need a class in economics. I think the correct word is a class in CASH FLOW

You need to read posts a little closer and quit getting your panties in a bunch. I never said you said to force anyone to do anything. I said that with what you propose, that is the next logical step. First you force a company to offer a "living wage". Then when companies can't afford to pay it and don't hire people, what do you do to get people these jobs? The only thing left would be to tell companies who they have to hire. I made the point to show you how silly your idea is.....because that is where it would lead.

And while you might not have said the exact words, all of your posts point to an employer being required to pay this elusive "living wage" regardless of skill or aboilty and based purely on thie "need". That is what you keep endorsing. And that means that the employer is handed a responsibility of paying you what you think your need is instead of what the job is worth. If that isn't what you mean, you've wasted a lot of time doing a poor job of explaining yourself. Find a better way to say what you mean, because there are a lot of people hearing you say what you claim you are not saying.

My "panties" are not in a wad. I was born and raised in the second poorest county out of 67 in the state I call home
You guys keep talking about hair stylist and ham burger flippers.
In the south 12.50-13.00 an hour is un heard of. Those people log, work cows, farm,work @ saw-mill etc.. etc... etc...
That is the grown men and women am talking about. that are on partial welfare and food stamps that work 40-50 hours a week and make live below the poverty level

 

[Care4all]

the ability to empathize, and be able to put yourself in other human being's shoes seems to be lacking, with many people today....

that's what i get out of this thread.....

one point that seems to be ignored is that us tax payers are subsiding businesses by paying for medicaid and food stamps for those business's 40 hour a week near minimum wage adult worker, who makes the business owner a profit he gets to keep....
something is wrong with that picture.....

but again, we the tax payer subsidizes the difference between the money the owner pays his full time, adult worker..... and a living wage.....


If we got rid of the safety nets, would businesses have to pay much much more for their own employees...would the market call for this and higher wages would just prevail?

seems like all the employers would have to pay more for their full time workers?

but would they? I dunno?

 

[JRK]

the ability to empathize, and be able to put yourself in other human being's shoes seems to be lacking, with many people today....

that's what i get out of this thread.....

one point that seems to be ignored is that us tax payers are subsiding businesses by paying for medicaid and food stamps for those business's 40 hour a week near minimum wage adult worker, who makes the business owner a profit he gets to keep....
something is wrong with that picture.....

but again, we the tax payer subsidizes the difference between the money the owner pays his full time, adult worker..... and a living wage.....


If we got rid of the safety nets, would businesses have to pay much much more for their own employees...would the market call for this and higher wages would just prevail?

seems like all the employers would have to pay more for their full time workers?

but would they? I dunno?

Your first comment knocks it out of the park. People are starting to realize that have been reading this thread that we are going to either pay for it thru more taxation or thru the free market. Most all of the "corporations" us federally funded "stuff" to make there profits, and yes they pay more than there share of taxes to use it
So do I. This IS WORKING in Australia.
If a company has a base of 10.00 an hour to fix there products price or 13 and hour, as long as its competitive they do not care.
Bacon Davis proves this. Union work proves this. Trade unions are the guiding light as to where we should go as a country
not the UAW, TRADE UNIONS

 

[Katzndogz]

When you claim an employer should pay everyone, regardless of their need for it, enough to live on THAT is where you are stating it (that it is an employers responsibility to provide for your needs). Believe me you are just as aggravating that you can't see that the following two statements are the saying the same thing.

1) An employer should pay an employee enough to provide for themselves.

2) An employer should be responsible for providing for the basic needs of their employees.



It isn't about any side winning. The employer/employee relationship isn't a master/slave relationship. Nor do I believe it should be. It is an agreement between two parties. Compensation in exchange for service. Maybe as part of your compensation you want enough to live on. That's fine, but an employer is under no legal or even moral obligation to agree to that demand. Whether an employer agrees to that in a free market merely depends on whether or not he can find someone else who will agree to less than what you're demanding. If that's what it takes to keep you and their is no viable alternative then you'll get your living wage.

Bravo. One small observation though. You'll get your living wage IF that living wage is worth it to the employer. Make that living wage higher than what it is worth to the employer and nobody will be hired.

If either of you understood economics and stopped and listened to what I have said. It is not about the employer. He could care less what he pays for my service as long as he an make a profit on it
If every-one has to pay a minimum of 12.50 an hour, then by golly every-one is going to keep doing the very same thing there doing today and making the same % profit
but lets dont do that

Lets make sure we spend 500 billion every yea subsidizing those people who make 15,000 a year so, well I have no idea why would we would keep doing that
you keep trying to tell me its not the employer place to pay someone for a good days work, well your right with many people it looks to me

Seems like the real answer is to stop subsidizing people who make $15,000 a year. If someone chooses to remain in a job that pays $15,000 a year and chooses to raise a family on that money, it seems they should not be subsidized for their choices. Forcing individuals to grow up and out of $15,000 a year jobs would have a greater benefit because it would free up those jobs for first time hires and those who are only looking for supplemental income.

 

[kwc57]

The term 'living wage' should be self explanatory.

Except it isn't. A living wage for how many people to live off? In what geogrpahic region? What if I don't need a living wage?

How many people? Use division.

Geography? Does not matter.You don't need a living wage? You are not alive.


Self explanatory...most of the time.

Negative!

You come in looking for a job and the employer tells you that they pay a living wage of say $20 per hour. Then you say, "oh, but I have a wife and three kids". Is he supposed to then say, "oh, why didn't you say that up front.....for guys like you the wage is $60 per hour to cover the expenses of your family"?

Geogrpahic region makes a world of difference. Don't believe me, Google "cost of living calculator" and plug in different cities to see how much it costs to live in different places. A house in Oklahoma City that costs $250,000 could easily cost $1,000,000 on the east or west coast. A single federally mandated "living wage" might be more than enough to live off of in one location and not in another.

You guys really need to spend some time thinking some of this stuff thru instead of just singing kum by yah and holding hands.

 

[Bern80]

the ability to empathize, and be able to put yourself in other human being's shoes seems to be lacking, with many people today....

that's what i get out of this thread.....

one point that seems to be ignored is that us tax payers are subsiding businesses by paying for medicaid and food stamps for those business's 40 hour a week near minimum wage adult worker, who makes the business owner a profit he gets to keep....
something is wrong with that picture.....

but again, we the tax payer subsidizes the difference between the money the owner pays his full time, adult worker..... and a living wage.....


If we got rid of the safety nets, would businesses have to pay much much more for their own employees...would the market call for this and higher wages would just prevail?

seems like all the employers would have to pay more for their full time workers?

but would they? I dunno?

No it really isn't. The problem is a lot of people don't really know what empathy is. Or they translate empathy into an action which it isn't. Empathy is as you say the ability to identify with another's situation, but that is all it is. It is NOT pity, sympathy or charity. You talk about empathy as if someone is supposed to bend over backwards, pile a bunch of money on some pour soul and ask nothing of them to fix their problem. That isn't empathy. That's a hand out and will do them more harm than good in the long run. You help people by helping them help themselves. You show them the steps to a better life. But they are the ones that have to take the steps. You can't do it for them and you can't fix it for them. Doing so is called enabling and it is the single best way to ensure a person's failure. I get wanting to reduce welfare roles and the cost of social services, but you don't make society better simply by giving things to people with no expectations of them.

 

[Bern80]

I never said to force anyone to do one thing, and this employer providing my needs, I have no idea where that came from, I never have said it, The one who is fixated on the employer owning everything said that
I make 6 figures a year
I run multi million dollar projects
My sector does no have this problem

you pass a drug test, you show up every day, you do what your told
we will pay you 11.00 an hour minimum, pay 75% of your ins and offer you a 48 hour work week
I have no idea why anyone thinks that a 12.50 an hour minimum wage harms the employer, he is just going to charge enough to cover those cost and make his/her profit

This thing has found a place were we can agree to dis agree
Its a mess here
its working in Australia
I have no idea why I think its a good idea and what confuses me the most is how we found a place in which I stated the employer owes anybody anything
The federal law mandates a minimum wage, according to others that is to much and I need a class in economics. I think the correct word is a class in CASH FLOW

You need to read posts a little closer and quit getting your panties in a bunch. I never said you said to force anyone to do anything. I said that with what you propose, that is the next logical step. First you force a company to offer a "living wage". Then when companies can't afford to pay it and don't hire people, what do you do to get people these jobs? The only thing left would be to tell companies who they have to hire. I made the point to show you how silly your idea is.....because that is where it would lead.

And while you might not have said the exact words, all of your posts point to an employer being required to pay this elusive "living wage" regardless of skill or aboilty and based purely on thie "need". That is what you keep endorsing. And that means that the employer is handed a responsibility of paying you what you think your need is instead of what the job is worth. If that isn't what you mean, you've wasted a lot of time doing a poor job of explaining yourself. Find a better way to say what you mean, because there are a lot of people hearing you say what you claim you are not saying.

My "panties" are not in a wad. I was born and raised in the second poorest county out of 67 in the state I call home
You guys keep talking about hair stylist and ham burger flippers.
In the south 12.50-13.00 an hour is un heard of. Those people log, work cows, farm,work @ saw-mill etc.. etc... etc...
That is the grown men and women am talking about. that are on partial welfare and food stamps that work 40-50 hours a week and make live below the poverty level

I'm sure that was more difficult for you than what a lot of other people had to go through growing up. But.....that does not mean society owes you anything. An employer does not owe you the ability to meet your basic needs. You owe it to yourself to give the effort it takes to accomplish that. We keep talking about burger flippers and low skill jobs because so far you have yet to be specific about what jobs your living wage law would apply to. As Kwc, was pointing out perhaps the issue is you're not being very clear. What it sounds like you're advocating is that your employer should be responsible for provding for your basic needs and that EVERY job should pay a living wage. If that isn't what you believe, clarify it, because me arguing against a position that someone really isn't advocating is pointless.

 

[kwc57]

I never said to force anyone to do one thing, and this employer providing my needs, I have no idea where that came from, I never have said it, The one who is fixated on the employer owning everything said that
I make 6 figures a year
I run multi million dollar projects
My sector does no have this problem

you pass a drug test, you show up every day, you do what your told
we will pay you 11.00 an hour minimum, pay 75% of your ins and offer you a 48 hour work week
I have no idea why anyone thinks that a 12.50 an hour minimum wage harms the employer, he is just going to charge enough to cover those cost and make his/her profit

This thing has found a place were we can agree to dis agree
Its a mess here
its working in Australia
I have no idea why I think its a good idea and what confuses me the most is how we found a place in which I stated the employer owes anybody anything
The federal law mandates a minimum wage, according to others that is to much and I need a class in economics. I think the correct word is a class in CASH FLOW

You need to read posts a little closer and quit getting your panties in a bunch. I never said you said to force anyone to do anything. I said that with what you propose, that is the next logical step. First you force a company to offer a "living wage". Then when companies can't afford to pay it and don't hire people, what do you do to get people these jobs? The only thing left would be to tell companies who they have to hire. I made the point to show you how silly your idea is.....because that is where it would lead.

And while you might not have said the exact words, all of your posts point to an employer being required to pay this elusive "living wage" regardless of skill or aboilty and based purely on thie "need". That is what you keep endorsing. And that means that the employer is handed a responsibility of paying you what you think your need is instead of what the job is worth. If that isn't what you mean, you've wasted a lot of time doing a poor job of explaining yourself. Find a better way to say what you mean, because there are a lot of people hearing you say what you claim you are not saying.

My "panties" are not in a wad. I was born and raised in the second poorest county out of 67 in the state I call home
You guys keep talking about hair stylist and ham burger flippers.
In the south 12.50-13.00 an hour is un heard of. Those people log, work cows, farm,work @ saw-mill etc.. etc... etc...
That is the grown men and women am talking about. that are on partial welfare and food stamps that work 40-50 hours a week and make live below the poverty level

What prevents them from bettering themselves instead of doing what daddy did? Can they not get an education? Can they not move to a place with better jobs for the education they pursued? Look, my dad was born in a farm house in 1925 with no electricity or running water and as a boy he plowed with mules. He left the farm and moved to the "big city" because he knew he could get a job that paid more than scratching out a living in the dirt of a farm. Heck, the farm didn't pay the bills to begin with. My grandad worked a full time job at a mill and farmed too.

Question, did you stay in your poorest county out of 67 or did you leave? Did the education you got and the moves you made have any impact on the kind of money you make today? Would you recommend the same path to others or do you really think that your peers where you grew up should just automatically get paid the same as you for farming, working cows and saw-mills?

We are responsible for our own lot in life. I have found you t obe conservative on most other subjects, but you are really far left on this one. You need to take a long look in the mirror and think about whether this socialist idea of yours is really conservative or not. For over 750 posts, your conservative friends have been explaining to you in full detail what is wrong with this idea of yours.

 

[editec]

Asking the question: What is a living wage? is asking ourselves the wrong question.

the right question is: What does a living thriving economy look like?

The answer is: It is does NOT look like ours does today.

 

[JRK]

Asking the question: What is a living wage? is asking ourselves the wrong question.

the right question is: What does a living thriving economy look like?

The answer is: It is does NOT look like ours does today.

The sector I work in is collapsing to the point Canada as well as Australia is my only near term options it seems

 

[Bern80]

Asking the question: What is a living wage? is asking ourselves the wrong question.

the right question is: What does a living thriving economy look like?

The answer is: It is does NOT look like ours does today.

It's only 9:30 am here and we already have the winner for useless post of the day.

 

[Bern80]

Asking the question: What is a living wage? is asking ourselves the wrong question.

the right question is: What does a living thriving economy look like?

The answer is: It is does NOT look like ours does today.

The sector I work in is collapsing to the point Canada as well as Australia is my only near term options it seems

Then you aren't looking hard enough. Get a resume on career builder and/or monster. You don't even need a college education to make a living wage. Or think about moving to the Williston, ND area where the oil rush is.

 

[JRK]

Asking the question: What is a living wage? is asking ourselves the wrong question.

the right question is: What does a living thriving economy look like?

The answer is: It is does NOT look like ours does today.

The sector I work in is collapsing to the point Canada as well as Australia is my only near term options it seems

Then you aren't looking hard enough. Get a resume on career builder and/or monster. You don't even need a college education to make a living wage.

With respect, my issue is not a living wage and if you thought my compassion was built on my failure to make a living wage that is sad-?
any-way your are way out of touch of where the heart beat of this country really is. Out-side of the medical sector it is dying
There are just so many jobs for people who do what I do. I hate to say this but the problem with this nations economy is that exact lack of understanding
Obama has no clue what he is doing, that is just a fact

The housing sector is broke.

the power industry does not have a clue whether to build more power plants or what to do


Canada and Mexico is getting all of the fossil fuel related work we could be getting

your talking millions of jobs that we are losing as I firm believer in the trickle down effect

 

[Bern80]

The sector I work in is collapsing to the point Canada as well as Australia is my only near term options it seems

Then you aren't looking hard enough. Get a resume on career builder and/or monster. You don't even need a college education to make a living wage.

With respect, my issue is not a living wage and if you thought my compassion was built on my failure to make a living wage that is sad-?
any-way your are way out of touch of where the heart beat of this country really is. Out-side of the medical sector it is dying
There are just so many jobs for people who do what I do. I hate to say this but the problem with this nations economy is that exact lack of understanding
Obama has no clue what he is doing, that is just a fact


The housing sector is broke.

the power industry does not have a clue whether to build more power plants or what to do


Canada and Mexico is getting all of the fossil fuel related work we could be getting

your talking millions of jobs that we are losing as I firm believer in the trickle down effect

You're just plain wrong here JRK. The state of North Dakota right now is literally booming with fossil fuel production. Their unemployment rate is 3.4%. Do me a favor. Do what I asked. Put a resume on career builder and monster. Then, if somehow your inbox doesn't have a couple dozen job openings in it every week like mine, THEN you can come back on here and tell me there aren't any jobs. Deal?

Maybe your personal issue isn't a living wage, but you are most certainly advocating that it is your employers responsibility to provide for your needs and you also most definatley seem to be advocating that every job should pay a living wage. I really hope the heart beat of this country isn't reflective of the idea that it someone elses responsibility to take care of them. If it is, we really are screwed