It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely anachronistic. View on thebillfold.com http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ Preview by Yahoo
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to prove it, not those that want more to just get by. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's employees? What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job. From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a sausage McMuffin. So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote : I really don't think this is the case. Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for protection. Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare. When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape? I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps that is the case. What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun ownership and lethal gun use on fellow human beings seems to be tied to the state of our society where absurdly rich exist geographically within spitting distance of those who can't afford a decent meal (I was listening to NPR tonight driving home from work and there was an interview where they were talking about the wealthy in Manhattan whose net income per year was, on average, 120K and just a 25 minute commute away in the Bronx were folks who made, on average $20K per annum). This creates a problem. This creates the potential for violence. This can make people crazy with resentment, with need and then place a gun in their hands and all bets are off. Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes more likely than not killing. Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimum wage. For about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money you can accumulate. He with the most bucks wins." Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good. So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you agree with what my point was! This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between Americans is one of them, for sure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote : But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry a gun is based in fear and a distorted idea that to change the Constitution with regard to gun ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even sacrilegious. This whole gun issue reveals far more than just how people feel about arms. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote : More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence. By contrast, so few Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you chart the two together, the terrorism death count approximates zero for every year except 2001. This comparison, if anything, understates the gap: Far more Americans die every year from (easily preventable) gun suicides than gun homicides. The point Obama is making is clear: We spend huge amounts of money every year fighting terrorism, yet are unwilling, at the national level, to take even minor steps (like requiring background checks on all gun sales nationally) to stop gun violence.
