PDA

View Full Version : Seattle pass $15 minimum wage



sandsjames
06-03-2014, 02:17 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/02/news/economy/seattle-minimum-wage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Thoughts? On one hand, great for those who need it.

My question is this...If one can make $15 an hour, what's the motivation to not drop out of high school and get a job? Will dropout numbers go up, or will the better (living wage) lifestyle lead to more educated people in the long run?

Option 1: I hate school, I can make pretty good money working a minimum wage job. Why finish?

Option 2: I can provide a better life for my children, which means they will have a better opportunity to become educated and do better than I did.

Rusty Jones
06-03-2014, 02:23 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/02/news/economy/seattle-minimum-wage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Thoughts? On one hand, great for those who need it.

My question is this...If one can make $15 an hour, what's the motivation to not drop out of high school and get a job? Will dropout numbers go up, or will the better (living wage) lifestyle lead to more educated people in the long run?

Option 1: I hate school, I can make pretty good money working a minimum wage job. Why finish?

Option 2: I can provide a better life for my children, which means they will have a better opportunity to become educated and do better than I did.

I really can't help but think that the worry about whether or not someone is going to finish high school because of the minimum wage is really a mask for true concerns that might be less than noble.

Otherwise, I think people need to pay close attention to what's going on in Seattle in the years that follow.

SomeRandomGuy
06-03-2014, 03:07 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/02/news/economy/seattle-minimum-wage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Thoughts? On one hand, great for those who need it.

My question is this...If one can make $15 an hour, what's the motivation to not drop out of high school and get a job? Will dropout numbers go up, or will the better (living wage) lifestyle lead to more educated people in the long run?

Option 1: I hate school, I can make pretty good money working a minimum wage job. Why finish?

Option 2: I can provide a better life for my children, which means they will have a better opportunity to become educated and do better than I did.

Question: What is so magical about 13 years of school? If a 16 year old kid has learned all the basic skills they need and they have no desire to further their education why shouldn't they go ahead and enter the work force at 16? My senior year of high school I did the work study program where I went to school half of the day and worked at my dad's construction company the other half of the day. The 5 classes I took that year were Bible Study (christian school), Music, American Government, Study Hall, and Physical Education. What was so valuable about that year that I couldn't have just graduated the year before? Literally, the only reason I needed to attend was to meet the credit requirements so I could graduate and move on to college. Wouldn't it be a better use of my time to learn a skill or make some cash by entering the workforce?

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 03:13 PM
I really can't help but think that the worry about whether or not someone is going to finish high school because of the minimum wage is really a mask for true concerns that might be less than noble.

Otherwise, I think people need to pay close attention to what's going on in Seattle in the years that follow.

It's absolutely not "less than noble". It's an honest question and that's why I raised both sides of the question...the good and bad.

It will be a good testing ground, though Seattle already has one of the best economies in the country so it may not translate the same to all cities.

To add to the high school drop out point, let me put it this way:

I'm in high school and know already that I don't plan on going to college. With just a high school deploma I know I'm not going to be marketable for anything other than a service type job. What would be the advantage of completing high school when I know I can get a job, make ok money, and get some work experience which may help me get a better job later on?

To the second point, will the increased wages withing the lower income communities provide more opportunity. Will it improve the schools in those areas, enticing those who may have dropped out to actually stay in and complete school?

I'm really curious to see the outcome and hope that it's the second option.

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 03:15 PM
Question: What is so magical about 13 years of school? If a 16 year old kid has learned all the basic skills they need and they have no desire to further their education why shouldn't they go ahead and enter the work force at 16? My senior year of high school I did the work study program where I went to school half of the day and worked at my dad's construction company the other half of the day. The 5 classes I took that year were Bible Study (christian school), Music, American Government, Study Hall, and Physical Education. What was so valuable about that year that I couldn't have just graduated the year before? Literally, the only reason I needed to attend was to meet the credit requirements so I could graduate and move on to college. Wouldn't it be a better use of my time to learn a skill or make some cash by entering the workforce?

Very possible. England has this option. The last 2 years is pretty much optional. Though the point is more about how the wages will affect things rather than whether 13 years of school is beneficial. That's probably another entire thread.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-03-2014, 03:25 PM
Companies will figure out how to make up for the increased personnel costs. Options include reduced hours, reduced labor or higher prices. If I was a small business owner, then I would spend the 7 year transition period looking for ways to relocate outside of city limits. Add in the health care mandate, and I would also limit my business growth to stay under the employee # threshold for having to provide healthcare.

Aren't progressive policies wonderful for America?

SomeRandomGuy
06-03-2014, 03:29 PM
Very possible. England has this option. The last 2 years is pretty much optional. Though the point is more about how the wages will affect things rather than whether 13 years of school is beneficial. That's probably another entire thread.

I had a friend in high school who landed a job as a busboy at Olive Garden right out of high school. The waiters and waitresses at Olive Garden make pretty good money and they all tip the bussers. His parents became concerned that he wouldn't be interested in going to college because he was already making close to $20 an hour just working at Olive Garden. The same thing could happen with $15 minimum wage. My biggest concern is what he $15 minimum wage would do the the prices of goods not how it effects the worker. Higher minumum wage hurts people who are not working or those living on a fixed income such as social security. If McDonalds pays everyone $15 per hour they sure as heck won't be selling cheeseburgers for a $1 anymore.

WILDJOKER5
06-03-2014, 03:58 PM
I really can't help but think that the worry about whether or not someone is going to finish high school because of the minimum wage is really a mask for true concerns that might be less than noble.

Otherwise, I think people need to pay close attention to what's going on in Seattle in the years that follow.

I fully agree. Like how we have paid attention to Detroit and Chicago and New Orleans, and Atlanta, and...well, just name a democrat city not taxed out their minds. I guess Seattle is trying to attract all the low skilled, under educated people they can get to work these lowest of the totem poll jobs they can get. Honestly, if I had my choice between Seattle or North Dakota, I think I am going to ND to help out with the oil instead of Seattle to flip burgers.

Rusty Jones
06-03-2014, 04:23 PM
It's absolutely not "less than noble". It's an honest question and that's why I raised both sides of the question...the good and bad.

It will be a good testing ground, though Seattle already has one of the best economies in the country so it may not translate the same to all cities.

To add to the high school drop out point, let me put it this way:

I'm in high school and know already that I don't plan on going to college. With just a high school deploma I know I'm not going to be marketable for anything other than a service type job. What would be the advantage of completing high school when I know I can get a job, make ok money, and get some work experience which may help me get a better job later on?

To the second point, will the increased wages withing the lower income communities provide more opportunity. Will it improve the schools in those areas, enticing those who may have dropped out to actually stay in and complete school?

I'm really curious to see the outcome and hope that it's the second option.



It's absolutely not "less than noble". It's an honest question and that's why I raised both sides of the question...the good and bad.

It will be a good testing ground, though Seattle already has one of the best economies in the country so it may not translate the same to all cities.

To add to the high school drop out point, let me put it this way:

I'm in high school and know already that I don't plan on going to college. With just a high school deploma I know I'm not going to be marketable for anything other than a service type job. What would be the advantage of completing high school when I know I can get a job, make ok money, and get some work experience which may help me get a better job later on?

To the second point, will the increased wages withing the lower income communities provide more opportunity. Will it improve the schools in those areas, enticing those who may have dropped out to actually stay in and complete school?

I'm really curious to see the outcome and hope that it's the second option.

Or maybe... just maybe... employers can exercise their option to pay high school graduates more than $15/hr.

In truth, things are no different than now. One can still drop out of high school outside of Seattle and make whatever the minimum wage is there.


Companies will figure out how to make up for the increased personnel costs. Options include reduced hours, reduced labor or higher prices. If I was a small business owner, then I would spend the 7 year transition period looking for ways to relocate outside of city limits. Add in the health care mandate, and I would also limit my business growth to stay under the employee # threshold for having to provide healthcare.

Aren't progressive policies wonderful for America?

In order to make up for increased pay at McDonald's, the average price per meal would only go up by around fifteen cents.

The one thing they don't tell you about these low wages and why places like McDonald's pay them - despite the numerous tax incentives that came out for paying higher wages (ones that even outweight the rise in personnel costs, assuming that prices aren't raised) is because of how it makes the financial statements look. Return on equity (ROE) is one of the most important things that investers look at, and higher wages lower the ROE. Taxes do not affect the ROE. Higher ROE looks good on paper to investors, which is why wages are kept low.

WILDJOKER5
06-03-2014, 04:35 PM
Companies will figure out how to make up for the increased personnel costs. Options include reduced hours, reduced labor or higher prices. If I was a small business owner, then I would spend the 7 year transition period looking for ways to relocate outside of city limits. Add in the health care mandate, and I would also limit my business growth to stay under the employee # threshold for having to provide healthcare.

Aren't progressive policies wonderful for America?Dont forget about lowering quality. Adding in more "meat substitute" to spread the "real" meat out longer. Or washing the laundry less times a week in hotels.

Rusty Jones
06-03-2014, 04:40 PM
Dont forget about lowering quality. Adding in more "meat substitute" to spread the "real" meat out longer. Or washing the laundry less times a week in hotels.

Do you really believe this shit, or are you just trying to drag on a useless argument?

No doubt, if they did do something like this... they'd likely announce it first (as opposed to doing it quietly), as the sole purpose of them doing it would be to protest the minimum wage. Not as a money recovery method.

Remember when corporate Papa John's and a Florida Denny's franchise tried to increase prices by a dime, and then announced to the world that they were doing it... when no one would have even noticed? Same deal. Political statements, and they want to be heard.

Measure Man
06-03-2014, 04:41 PM
Question: What is so magical about 13 years of school? If a 16 year old kid has learned all the basic skills they need and they have no desire to further their education why shouldn't they go ahead and enter the work force at 16?

Because when they are 35 they'll be protesting that it's unfair they can't raise their family of 6 on it.


Companies will figure out how to make up for the increased personnel costs. Options include reduced hours, reduced labor or higher prices.

...reduced margin :-O

I am under the impression that the fast food business has huge margins. Yes, part of the reason for the huge margin is the very cheap labor costs they enjoy. I remember reading that a fountain soda that McDonald's sells for $2.35 or whatever, costs them about 9 cents to produce. In other words, their prices have very little to do with their costs and much more to do with what the market will bear. If they increased labor costs make the soda 15 cents to produce, do you really think they'll raise the price to 2.42, or will they simply take 6 less cents in margin?

Let's assume that the economic analysis performed to arrive at $2.35 is pretty good, and that they've already decided that this price yields the best sales data.

Here's another clue...it does not matter how much margin they are making...they are ALWAYS trying to figure out ways to make more...reduced hours, reduced labor or higher prices. If they thought you would pay 3.00 for that soda and buy just as many, they would already be charging that. If they thought they could perform the same service by reducing hours, they would have already reduced them.

I will say the higher labor wages will likely induce some to invest in replacement technologoy, i.e. fast food automatic kiosks vs. cashier. But, that is going to happen anyway, but yes, raising the minimum wage will incentivize them to do it sooner rather than later.


If I was a small business owner, then I would spend the 7 year transition period looking for ways to relocate outside of city limits. Add in the health care mandate, and I would also limit my business growth to stay under the employee # threshold for having to provide healthcare.

That would depend on the nature of the business. If you are going to move your donut shop outside the city limits...well, that will just leave an opportunity for another donut shop where you left. Of course, you might make the donuts outside the city and truck them in everyday. So, yes, your point is valid in that some jobs will probably relocate. Fast food joints ain't going nowhere.


I had a friend in high school who landed a job as a busboy at Olive Garden right out of high school. The waiters and waitresses at Olive Garden make pretty good money and they all tip the bussers. His parents became concerned that he wouldn't be interested in going to college because he was already making close to $20 an hour just working at Olive Garden. The same thing could happen with $15 minimum wage. My biggest concern is what he $15 minimum wage would do the the prices of goods not how it effects the worker.

It does not affect the prices that much...prices are set at what the market will bear. It may cut down on production since margins will be lower.


Higher minumum wage hurts people who are not working or those living on a fixed income such as social security. If McDonalds pays everyone $15 per hour they sure as heck won't be selling cheeseburgers for a $1 anymore.

It is possible that McDonald's today is not making any money on that $1 cheeseburger...they are giving away $1 cheeseburgers in order to sell you the $2.35 soda. So, if labor rates went up, then I agree they are probably not going to take a loss on that $1 cheeseburger and maybe make it a $1.25 cheeseburger in order to get you in there to purchase the $2.35 soda.

Your point is valid.


I fully agree. Like how we have paid attention to Detroit and Chicago and New Orleans, and Atlanta, and...well, just name a democrat city not taxed out their minds. I guess Seattle is trying to attract all the low skilled, under educated people they can get to work these lowest of the totem poll jobs they can get. Honestly, if I had my choice between Seattle or North Dakota, I think I am going to ND to help out with the oil instead of Seattle to flip burgers.

I hear they have openings!

Measure Man
06-03-2014, 04:49 PM
Do you really believe this shit, or are you just trying to drag on a useless argument?

No doubt, if they did do something like this... they'd likely announce it first (as opposed to doing it quietly), as the sole purpose of them doing it would be to protest the minimum wage. Not as a money recovery method.

Remember when corporate Papa John's and a Florida Denny's franchise tried to increase prices by a dime, and then announced to the world that they were doing it... when no one would have even noticed? Same deal. Political statements, and they want to be heard.

Yep...self-fulfilling prophecy. They complain that policies will generate certain results...and then they make it happen to prove they were right.

Hell a year before Obamacare even kicked off their were companies cancelling their insurance plans "due to Obamacare."

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 05:48 PM
Yep...self-fulfilling prophecy. They complain that policies will generate certain results...and then they make it happen to prove they were right.

Hell a year before Obamacare even kicked off their were companies cancelling their insurance plans "due to Obamacare."

Well, in fairness company costs and budgets are not a last minute thing. They have to be planned for. I am not saying you are not right in some instances but I know some companies (my last employer for one) had to position themselves ahead of time to reduce the cost increases they knew were coming (and arrived as predicted).

Edit......meant to say MM is correct in some instances

WILDJOKER5
06-03-2014, 06:22 PM
Do you really believe this shit, or are you just trying to drag on a useless argument?You honestly dont think that cutting quality and making up for a lower revenue can take the form of substituting cheaper materials for the product that is being made? Do you honestly think the only play a business will cut costs is by cutting the work force or raising prices. Guess why Taco Bell had 70% meat substitute in their tacos.


No doubt, if they did do something like this... they'd likely announce it first (as opposed to doing it quietly), as the sole purpose of them doing it would be to protest the minimum wage. Not as a money recovery method.Sure, GM and Crysler announced it to the world that their quality of the cars they made were cut to protest the unions demanding more pay.


Remember when corporate Papa John's and a Florida Denny's franchise tried to increase prices by a dime, and then announced to the world that they were doing it... when no one would have even noticed? Same deal. Political statements, and they want to be heard.Some do. A dime is one thing, cutting the quality is another. Remember when ice cream cut back on the portions they sold to "lower the calories" and kept the same prices?

retiredAFcivvy
06-03-2014, 06:46 PM
You honestly dont think that cutting quality and making up for a lower revenue can take the form of substituting cheaper materials for the product that is being made? Do you honestly think the only play a business will cut costs is by cutting the work force or raising prices. Guess why Taco Bell had 70% meat substitute in their tacos.

Sure, GM and Crysler announced it to the world that their quality of the cars they made were cut to protest the unions demanding more pay.

Some do. A dime is one thing, cutting the quality is another. Remember when ice cream cut back on the portions they sold to "lower the calories" and kept the same prices?
Popped a bag of microwave popcorn the other day and noticed it seemed to not be as full. Sure enough checked the box and the unpopped corn was a quarter ounce less.
Also, you're probably aware of the mandate for fast food chains who are serving in like the AAFEES food courts to pay a higher wage based on the revised wage determinations and are pulling out because of that.
Do you think they just want to stay comparable with "downtown" or hurting their pocketbooks?

WILDJOKER5
06-03-2014, 07:01 PM
Popped a bag of microwave popcorn the other day and noticed it seemed to not be as full. Sure enough checked the box and the unpopped corn was a quarter ounce less.
Also, you're probably aware of the mandate for fast food chains who are serving in like the AAFEES food courts to pay a higher wage based on the revised wage determinations and are pulling out because of that.
Do you think they just want to stay comparable with "downtown" or hurting their pocketbooks?

I know that, I was just giving a third option on ways a business can stay profitable. We do it at home, I mix flax seed in burgers to make the meat go further. There are only a few ways a business changes when their profits start to shrink; up the price, shrink the labor costs, and degrade the product materials.

AJBIGJ
06-03-2014, 08:36 PM
Let there be a Starbucks at every corner, and occupying every building in between those corners.

But seriously, I am curious what this will do towards which low-skilled workers will be getting employed. I do have a feeling people with higher skill bases may more frequently travel to Seattle from outside and seek jobs that really don't require an Associates Degree to perform effectively, but since there will be sufficient interested parties the people who took the time to get there will look a bit more attractive for those minimum wage positions then the teenager in his Junior Year of High School.

The other migration I'm a bit concerned about is whether businesses themselves will migrate accordingly. I suppose it depends on operational cost considerations. People have brought up another good point, what good really is $15 an hour when everything you have around you costs 20% more? I am actually an advocate of localities such as this determining for themselves their "Minimum Wage" (as opposed to Federal imposition). Cities have a much better handle on their local costs of living and may actually be able to set a price floor without a significant impact on their employment numbers. If their local economies can afford it the changes might actually force some local establishments to give their employees a better deal if they really are unscrupulous in their dealings. If it wasn't such a good arbitrary labor price floor that will pan out over the years and decades along with the flow of people out of there.

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 08:56 PM
Let there be a Starbucks at every corner, and occupying every building in between those corners.

But seriously, I am curious what this will do towards which low-skilled workers will be getting employed. I do have a feeling people with higher skill bases may more frequently travel to Seattle from outside and seek jobs that really don't require an Associates Degree to perform effectively, but since there will be sufficient interested parties the people who took the time to get there will look a bit more attractive for those minimum wage positions then the teenager in his Junior Year of High School.

The other migration I'm a bit concerned about is whether businesses themselves will migrate accordingly. I suppose it depends on operational cost considerations. People have brought up another good point, what good really is $15 an hour when everything you have around you costs 20% more? I am actually an advocate of localities such as this determining for themselves their "Minimum Wage" (as opposed to Federal imposition). Cities have a much better handle on their local costs of living and may actually be able to set a price floor without a significant impact on their employment numbers. If their local economies can afford it the changes might actually force some local establishments to give their employees a better deal if they really are unscrupulous in their dealings. If it wasn't such a good arbitrary labor price floor that will pan out over the years and decades along with the flow of people out of there.

Agree that there shouldn't be a set Federal minimum wage. At most, there should be something allowing for locality rates, as you stated.

Rusty Jones
06-03-2014, 09:00 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many of you are lapdogs for the rich.

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 09:27 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many of you are lapdogs for the rich.


Trying to find any posts that would lead you to this conclusion.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-03-2014, 10:10 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many of you are lapdogs for the rich.

Define "rich." I simply want would-be entrepreneurs to have the incentive to invent, start a business, grow a business and stay in business. To me, the best way to do that is to minimize the taxing (especially capital gains) and non-safety related regulations. Promote MORE growth and competition (products, services and talent). This will lead to more choices, higher quality, lower prices, and yes...MORE employment. Why is this so fricken hard for liberals to understand?

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 10:26 PM
Just my opinion, but the Conservatives hate the poor and love the rich, the Liberals hate the rich and love the poor, and in the meantime, nobody gives a shit about the middle class. The middle class is, and has been for a long time, the driving force for the U.S. economy.

GeoDude
06-03-2014, 11:27 PM
Companies will figure out how to make up for the increased personnel costs. Options include reduced hours, reduced labor or higher prices. If I was a small business owner, then I would spend the 7 year transition period looking for ways to relocate outside of city limits. Add in the health care mandate, and I would also limit my business growth to stay under the employee # threshold for having to provide healthcare.

I would be embarrassed to ever pay anyone less than $15 an hour. Why? Because I know from personal experience that is shit pay.


Aren't progressive policies wonderful for America?

Look at the bright side - at the very least we can implement progressive policies today without corporations deploying Pinkertons and the National Guard to shoot their own workers.


Just my opinion, but the Conservatives hate the poor and love the rich, the Liberals hate the rich and love the poor,

I don't think that's a fair statement. While some - maybe even a majority - of Republican leaders hate the poor - I don't think every single one does. Also - there is a minority of extremists who have been working to marginalize any mainstream viewpoint. Look at Romney - he has historically been center-right, but he shifted WAAAAAY to the right in the election - he had to sound like a complete nut just to get nominated by the angry old white guys who have a stranglehold on the party.

And Democrats don't hate the rich - Obama is just as much in the pocket of Wall Street as any Republican - that is a fact that is ignored both by the right and left media. Fox News wants to paint Obama as a Muslim atheist socialist who is going to steal grandma's pension and give it to lazy black people. MSNBC wants to paint Obama as a Christ figure who is going to make everything just dandy for the average American.


and in the meantime, nobody gives a shit about the middle class. The middle class is, and has been for a long time, the driving force for the U.S. economy.

Agreed -and it shrinks every generation.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 12:42 AM
I don't think that's a fair statement. While some - maybe even a majority - of Republican leaders hate the poor - I don't think every single one does. Also - there is a minority of extremists who have been working to marginalize any mainstream viewpoint. Look at Romney - he has historically been center-right, but he shifted WAAAAAY to the right in the election - he had to sound like a complete nut just to get nominated by the angry old white guys who have a stranglehold on the party.

And Democrats don't hate the rich - Obama is just as much in the pocket of Wall Street as any Republican - that is a fact that is ignored both by the right and left media. Fox News wants to paint Obama as a Muslim atheist socialist who is going to steal grandma's pension and give it to lazy black people. MSNBC wants to paint Obama as a Christ figure who is going to make everything just dandy for the average American.



Agreed -and it shrinks every generation.

I'm generalizing, of course, based on the stereotype. I think the average person believes that it's "Us vs. them" the majority of the time. That's due to several things. Lack of education, News Media Entertainment channels, etc. Hell, look at the discussions we have on here. Rarely anything brought up about the middle class. I'm not talking about the middle class we hear about (up to $200k)...I'm taking about the real middle class...$25k -$75k a year...Unfortunately it "up and out" or "down and out".

We always talk about "values" on this forum, and base it off of political or religious biases. I think the "traditional" values of the U.S. have nothing to do with either of those and more to do with how the middle class had to live to maintain that status.

Chief_KO
06-04-2014, 02:00 AM
Ever seen those touch screen order boards at McDonald's in Germany? No need to employ as many minimum wage counter folks...order your own/swipe your own credit card.

Can't wait to visit Seattle and enjoy a $9.00 BigMac meal and a $7.00 Latte at Starbucks...

I must be rich to afford those prices!!

garhkal
06-04-2014, 06:35 AM
On another site where this is being discussed one person brought up a good point. How will this hike affect those who work at LESS than min wage cause of tips?

Chief_KO
06-04-2014, 01:11 PM
On another site where this is being discussed one person brought up a good point. How will this hike affect those who work at LESS than min wage cause of tips?
I remember hearing of a study, I forget where...I think it was Oregon. The study revealed that the true take home of food service workers (waiters/waitresses) was well over $15 an hour, I think it was $22 an hour. When the proposal was to mandate min wage (and eliminate tipping) the proposal quickly died.
And "I'm sure" that all those employees declare all their tips to the IRS...

Sgt HULK
06-04-2014, 02:15 PM
The question I have is what about the rest of the folks? Lets say you are a college grad, making 15-20 an hour now as it is. How much will this devalue his degree, when an unskilled "min wage" earner is earning just as much. Will the rest of wages increase along the same scale? We have a guy making 9.00 an hour now and see a 6.00 an hour increase. Will everyone get that same 50% plus increase in pay? Right now I make 38 bucks an hour can I get a 17.00 an hour bump? Aside from increasing prices to offset the rise in wages, I have to wonder how everyone else will feel after spending thousands on advanced education only to be nulfied by this.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 02:23 PM
The question I have is what about the rest of the folks? Lets say you are a college grad, making 15-20 an hour now as it is. How much will this devalue his degree, when an unskilled "min wage" earner is earning just as much. Will the rest of wages increase along the same scale? We have a guy making 9.00 an hour now and see a 6.00 an hour increase. Will everyone get that same 50% plus increase in pay? Right now I make 38 bucks an hour can I get a 17.00 an hour bump? Aside from increasing prices to offset the rise in wages, I have to wonder how everyone else will feel after spending thousands on advanced education only to be nulfied by this.

It will definitely blur the lines between lower and middle class. If everyone working is middle class then that essentially expands the gap between lower and middle class, making the poor even poorer. It does, however, increase the size of the middle class. If both parents (assuming there is a two adult household) both work minimum wage jobs, they are making $30 an hour. That's a pretty sweet deal.

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 02:26 PM
How government works:

1) It innately makes the rich richer.

2) It buys the allegiance of the poor with free shit and minimum wages.

3) It destroys the middle class with 1 and 2.

4)McFailure

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 02:33 PM
The question I have is what about the rest of the folks? Lets say you are a college grad, making 15-20 an hour now as it is. How much will this devalue his degree, when an unskilled "min wage" earner is earning just as much. Will the rest of wages increase along the same scale? We have a guy making 9.00 an hour now and see a 6.00 an hour increase. Will everyone get that same 50% plus increase in pay? Right now I make 38 bucks an hour can I get a 17.00 an hour bump? Aside from increasing prices to offset the rise in wages, I have to wonder how everyone else will feel after spending thousands on advanced education only to be nulfied by this.

Sometimes yes sometimes no, if the median wage value moves semi-proportionately with the minimum wage it is possible that businesses will raise the value of medium-skilled positions to accomodate the changes (and improve retention in those jobs). If the median wage value stays relatively constant however, what you will have is a buttload of baristas with Master's Degrees. The best possible scenario here, if progressive utopia goes into effect, the Seattle economic picture will look alot like Washington DC. The people will be paid well under a fairly high cost of living environment. It will also probably favor the more sizable franchise industries over the mom and pop shops if the latter can't match the relative increase in median wages.

In truth the "Minimum Wage" itself is kind of red herring in grander economic terms. It does create a price floor for labor which may or may not impact the local unemployment depending on other circumstances specific to the region. What's more important is the market value of marketable skill sets and where the market sees the worth of enumerated KSAs. Sometimes the latter rises alongside the former, which I believe is the intended consequence sought by the Krugman's of the world. It doesn't really speak to the unintended consequences because it's really tough to quantify the jobs that never got created by entrepreneurs or the compensation packages that would have hypothetically existed had the wage increase not gone into effect.

Rusty Jones
06-04-2014, 02:53 PM
How government works:

1) It innately makes the rich richer.

2) It buys the allegiance of the poor with free shit and minimum wages.

3) It destroys the middle class with 1 and 2.

4)McFailure

The middle class destroys itself by identifying with the rich.

I think I've mentioned this story before (take the race part of out it, in order to understand what I'm saying):

During the Apartheid in South Africa, there were three classifications of people - white, black, and coloured. "Coloured" consisted mostly of people who were mixed black and white, but also included people who where neither black nor white - such as Asians.

It was basically a three-tiered system, where whites had more rights than coloureds, and coloureds had more rights than blacks.

During the early 90's when the push to end Apartheid picked up speed... the coloureds knew that they would gain all the rights that they had been denied for the previous decades. That's good, right?

Wrong. Because, the was one group of people that they had the luxury of being considered "better" than... equal rights for all, meant that would go away. The majority of coloureds actually voted to keep Apartheid... in fact, they were more hardcore about keeping it than whites were.

Think about it... they were willing to forgo more rights being granted to them, just so they can continue to be considered "better" than someone else.

How are our conservative middle class here in American any different?

I hear all of these conservatives, for example, screaming "less government" - but, let's be serious here: does the amount of government really have much bearing on the rights of individual private citizens?

No! "Less government" is not for YOU. It's for large corporations and the people who lead them. Less government means no one to stop them from fucking YOU over. These people sell it to middle class conservatives, and they buy it.

Rich people's problems are not YOUR problems, no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 03:08 PM
I hear all of these conservatives, for example, screaming "less government" - but, let's be serious here: does the amount of government really have much bearing on the rights of individual private citizens?

No! "Less government" is not for YOU. It's for large corporations and the people who lead them. Less government means no one to stop them from fucking YOU over. These people sell it to middle class conservatives, and they buy it.

Rich people's problems are not YOUR problems, no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise.

You're speaking in terms that are all completely arbitrary in nature, less government than what? More government than what? I think it's fair to say less government than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR is probably desirable. I think it's also fair to say more government than all of the Native American tribes had before Manifest Destiny did its thing is probably also desirable.

Corporations don't mind big government very much when it works for them. You don't think Lobbyists drop those kinds of dollars into PACs out of sheer principle do you? It's kind of helpful to retain market dominance when the nearest competitor has to run the gauntlet of regulations and overhead to stay in the race with you. Especially since the tallest, largest organizations, tend to have the lowest operational costs by comparison to their total revenues percentagewise. Rich people's problems are our problems, we all pay taxes into this beast and we often work for these rich demons and their success is kind of imperative towards our continued employment with their organization.

Rusty Jones
06-04-2014, 03:15 PM
Rich people's problems are our problems, we all pay taxes into this beast and we often work for these rich demons and their success is kind of imperative towards our continued employment with their organization.

I suggest listening to Malcolm X's speech on the house negro vs the field negro. What you just said here is a house negro mentality (take "race" out of it, and you'll see what I'm talking about).

You're going to fight for rich people, because you're afraid of the consequences of not doing it? How about fighting to take away that leverage, so that there would be no consequences to fear?

Rusty Jones
06-04-2014, 03:20 PM
Nevermind, AJ - I've done the work for you.


Back during slavery, when Black people like me talked to the slaves, they didn't kill 'em, they sent some old house Negro along behind him to undo what he said. You have to read the history of slavery to understand this. There were two kinds of Negroes. There was that old house Negro and the field Negro

And the house Negro always looked out for his master. When the field Negroes got too much out of line, he held them back in check. He put 'em back on the plantation. The house Negro could afford to do that because he lived better than the field Negro. He ate better, he dressed better, and he lived in a better house. He lived right up next to his master - in the attic or the basement. He ate the same food his master ate and wore his same clothes. And he could talk just like his master - good diction. And he loved his master more than his master loved himself. That's why he didn't want his master hurt. If the master got sick, he'd say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" When the master's house caught afire, he'd try and put the fire out. He didn't want his master's house burned. He never wanted his master's property threatened. And he was more defensive of it than the master was

That was the house Negro. But then you had some field Negroes, who lived in huts, had nothing to lose. They wore the worst kind of clothes. They ate the worst food. And they caught hell. They felt the sting of the lash. They hated their master. Oh yes, they did. If the master got sick, they'd pray that the master died. If the master's house caught afire, they'd pray for a strong wind to come along. This was the difference between the two

And today you still have house Negroes and field Negroes. I'm a field Negro

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 03:39 PM
I suggest listening to Malcolm X's speech on the house negro vs the field negro. What you just said here is a house negro mentality (take "race" out of it, and you'll see what I'm talking about).

You're going to fight for rich people, because you're afraid of the consequences of not doing it? How about fighting to take away that leverage, so that there would be no consequences to fear?

Simple difference here, there are no barriers, outside of what we imagine, that can prevent (some can however deter) any of us from rising above the position of house slave or field slave should we desire it, if we're willing to put in the effort.

Corporations have a few tools that can deter us from challenging them, the government has far more. The corporations (as well as unions with influence) invested in the government are the most dangerous of all.

What you're claiming is completely disproved every time a person rises above their circumstances of poverty or mediocrity and becomes influential in our economy, and that happens very frequently in the systems with "less government". The US outperforms Sweden by about double in such regards, as a for instance. The "Nouveaux Rich" are better than half and closer to two-thirds over here. Yes it helps to already have the advantage to stay ahead, here or anywhere. It's actually quite possible for an economy to thrive when the wealth disparity is higher, almost so common as to be a prerequisite. The difficulty is determining what barriers are erected to prevent economic mobility.

As an example, which establishment in Seattle stands to gain the most from this Minimum Wage increase? The "Starbucks" or the "Floyd's Coffee" working down the street that you've never heard of before?

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 03:42 PM
Nevermind, AJ - I've done the work for you.

Malcolm X is trying to identify himself as the "field Negro" so as not to be associated with the "Master". I wonder, if the situation had warranted, which position he would have chosen.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 03:54 PM
Nevermind, AJ - I've done the work for you.

Out of curiosity, did Malcolm say this before or after his Haj?

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 04:33 PM
The middle class destroys itself by identifying with the rich.

I think I've mentioned this story before (take the race part of out it, in order to understand what I'm saying):

During the Apartheid in South Africa, there were three classifications of people - white, black, and coloured. "Coloured" consisted mostly of people who were mixed black and white, but also included people who where neither black nor white - such as Asians.

It was basically a three-tiered system, where whites had more rights than coloureds, and coloureds had more rights than blacks.

During the early 90's when the push to end Apartheid picked up speed... the coloureds knew that they would gain all the rights that they had been denied for the previous decades. That's good, right?

Wrong. Because, the was one group of people that they had the luxury of being considered "better" than... equal rights for all, meant that would go away. The majority of coloureds actually voted to keep Apartheid... in fact, they were more hardcore about keeping it than whites were.

Think about it... they were willing to forgo more rights being granted to them, just so they can continue to be considered "better" than someone else.

How are our conservative middle class here in American any different?

I hear all of these conservatives, for example, screaming "less government" - but, let's be serious here: does the amount of government really have much bearing on the rights of individual private citizens?

No! "Less government" is not for YOU. It's for large corporations and the people who lead them. Less government means no one to stop them from fucking YOU over. These people sell it to middle class conservatives, and they buy it.

Rich people's problems are not YOUR problems, no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise.

We agree the so called conservatives in the GOP don't represent the middle class. But, This is where we always disagree Rusty. More government regulation not less, benefits large corporations. because only a multinational corporation can afford to follow all the stupid conflicting rules .gov puts on them. Once, they've squashed their competition they have a monopoly. Most Middle class jobs are created by small business. Small business can't afford the army of lawyers and specialists necessary to comply with all the regulation. They can't afford the fines when they are found non compliant. just like Obamcare was a giveaway to the Insurance lobby for the insurance lobby. Most government regulation is drafted by big business.

back to the topic. The problem is not the minimum wage. Fast food work should be an entry level job. It's not designed to be a career to support a family. If the country's manufacturing base wasn't outsourced to our former cold war soviet enemies China and India and every other third world shithole, this wouldn't be an issue. It's all just a part of inflating away the $3 Trillion of taxpayer funded QE that has been just sitting in the banks reserves collecting interest for the chosen elect for the last 5 years.

WILDJOKER5
06-04-2014, 04:46 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many of you are lapdogs for the rich.

It never ceases to amaze me how many of you are ignorant to think the GOP is the party of the rich. Its the dems who have a base of the poorest of the poor who vote in the wealthiest of the wealthy. And then say the GOP or the middle class are "lapdogs for the rich".

WILDJOKER5
06-04-2014, 04:52 PM
I would be embarrassed to ever pay anyone less than $15 an hour. Why? Because I know from personal experience that is shit pay.And if you couldnt afford to pay your workers $15/hr? Isnt $8/hr better than $0/hr? One day, $15/hr is going to be "shit" pay too.


Look at the bright side - at the very least we can implement progressive policies today without corporations deploying Pinkertons and the National Guard to shoot their own workers.Nah, it will be the government that call in the cops to shoot their citizens under progressism.


I don't think that's a fair statement. While some - maybe even a majority - of Republican leaders hate the poor - I don't think every single one does. Also - there is a minority of extremists who have been working to marginalize any mainstream viewpoint. Look at Romney - he has historically been center-right, but he shifted WAAAAAY to the right in the election - he had to sound like a complete nut just to get nominated by the angry old white guys who have a stranglehold on the party.I would say he moved "WAAAAAY authoritarian, not "right". Difference really.


And Democrats don't hate the rich - Obama is just as much in the pocket of Wall Street as any Republican - that is a fact that is ignored both by the right and left media. Fox News wants to paint Obama as a Muslim atheist socialist who is going to steal grandma's pension and give it to lazy black people. MSNBC wants to paint Obama as a Christ figure who is going to make everything just dandy for the average American.Obama is more so really. Look at his personal wealth going up 700% in these past 5 years as POTUS. You can't say it was "just a good investor". Or Pelosi, or Reid. The richest of those in politics are democrats.

WILDJOKER5
06-04-2014, 04:55 PM
The question I have is what about the rest of the folks? Lets say you are a college grad, making 15-20 an hour now as it is. How much will this devalue his degree, when an unskilled "min wage" earner is earning just as much. Will the rest of wages increase along the same scale? We have a guy making 9.00 an hour now and see a 6.00 an hour increase. Will everyone get that same 50% plus increase in pay? Right now I make 38 bucks an hour can I get a 17.00 an hour bump? Aside from increasing prices to offset the rise in wages, I have to wonder how everyone else will feel after spending thousands on advanced education only to be nulfied by this.

Its like pushing a rope when you raise min wage. Nothing moves until the bottom gets to them.

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 05:00 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many of you are ignorant to think the GOP is the party of the rich. Its the dems who have a base of the poorest of the poor who vote in the wealthiest of the wealthy. And then say the GOP or the middle class are "lapdogs for the rich".

They are both parties of the rich.

Marx described three necessary phases toward achieving his idea of utopia.

Phase 1: A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government. Marx emphasized the nee*d for total destruction of the existing system in order to move on to Phase 2.

Phase 2: A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen's personal choices -- including his or her education, religion, employment and even marriage. Collectivization of property and wealth must also take place.

Phase 3: Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia, everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top.

I'd say we're wrapping up phase 2.

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 05:55 PM
I'm generalizing, of course, based on the stereotype. I think the average person believes that it's "Us vs. them" the majority of the time. That's due to several things. Lack of education, News Media Entertainment channels, etc. Hell, look at the discussions we have on here. Rarely anything brought up about the middle class. I'm not talking about the middle class we hear about (up to $200k)...I'm taking about the real middle class...$25k -$75k a year...Unfortunately it "up and out" or "down and out".

We always talk about "values" on this forum, and base it off of political or religious biases. I think the "traditional" values of the U.S. have nothing to do with either of those and more to do with how the middle class had to live to maintain that status.

You think $25K a year is middle class? I know Sanjames a thrifty muhfugga but, that's only $12 bucks an hour.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 06:25 PM
You think $25K a year is middle class? I know Sanjames a thrifty muhfugga but, that's only $12 bucks an hour.

$12 an hour is livable, depending on your location. It's certainly not "poor". That's why I gave a span of $25k to $75k.

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 06:49 PM
In a dilapidated trailer supplemented with SNAP in West By God maybe.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 06:54 PM
In a dilapidated trailer supplemented with SNAP in West By God maybe.

My parents make $22k a year. They make a house payment, pay into Obamacare, eat well, and travel (by car) on a regular basis. Neither I nor they would consider themselves lower class. I also don't think any lower class people would consider them lower class. Oh, and that's in Northern California, not a terribly cheap place to live.

edit: What they don't have is a $200 a month cell phone bill, an $200 a month TV package, credit card debt, car payment, $400 dollar purse, etc.

garhkal
06-04-2014, 08:00 PM
The question I have is what about the rest of the folks? Lets say you are a college grad, making 15-20 an hour now as it is. How much will this devalue his degree, when an unskilled "min wage" earner is earning just as much. Will the rest of wages increase along the same scale? We have a guy making 9.00 an hour now and see a 6.00 an hour increase. Will everyone get that same 50% plus increase in pay? Right now I make 38 bucks an hour can I get a 17.00 an hour bump? Aside from increasing prices to offset the rise in wages, I have to wonder how everyone else will feel after spending thousands on advanced education only to be nulfied by this.

That's a good point. Min wage used to be a starting point for entry level people. If that gets kicked up, what of all the others?

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 08:11 PM
That's a good point. Min wage used to be a starting point for entry level people. If that gets kicked up, what of all the others?

That's the problem with these bleeding-hearts...they never really think through their visits from the good idea fairy.

My wife has a Bachelor's degree and has been working in the same field for over 10 years and makes barely over $15 bucks an hour. Now these jackholes come along and try to say that someone with minimal education and experience deserves to make as much as someone who has invested in their education and has experience? I say B.S. and f.u. as well.

It is not an employer's responsibility to ensure that every job pays enough to support a family, when minimum wage jobs were never meant to do that in the first place.

The bottom line is that if you have minimal education and minimal experience, don't expect to be paid like those who have put in the time and effort.

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 08:21 PM
My parents make $22k a year. They make a house payment, pay into Obamacare, eat well, and travel (by car) on a regular basis. Neither I nor they would consider themselves lower class. I also don't think any lower class people would consider them lower class. Oh, and that's in Northern California, not a terribly cheap place to live.

edit: What they don't have is a $200 a month cell phone bill, an $200 a month TV package, credit card debt, car payment, $400 dollar purse, etc.

$15K is the Federal Poverty level for a household of 2. Just curious what they paying for medical insurance under Obama care? All they'd have to do is make $600 a year less and they'd qualify for Medicaid.
Having grown up in what was at the time, the 2nd poorest MSA in America. Rainmaker is very familiar wiff doing more wiff less. 200 lbs of venison in the freezer every season and some home grown tamaters matters to those people. Rainmaker sure your folks is upper class people personally speaking, Rainmaker speaking statistically. Acceptance the last stage of loss. Your kin the type of people taking a beatin in this "recovery" NomSayin?

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 08:58 PM
$15K is the Federal Poverty level for a household of 2. Just curious what they paying for medical insurance under Obama care? All they'd have to do is make $600 a year less and they'd qualify for Medicaid.
Having grown up in what was at the time, the 2nd poorest MSA in America. Rainmaker is very familiar wiff doing more wiff less. 200 lbs of venison in the freezer every season and some home grown tamaters matters to those people. Rainmaker sure your folks is upper class people personally speaking, Rainmaker speaking statistically. Acceptance the last stage of loss. Your kin the type of people taking a beatin in this "recovery" NomSayin?

They do get Medicaid, so just under 22k I guess. The Obamacare is about $120 a month, I think. Don't know the specifics for sure.

One of the biggest problems, I think, is that people no longer understand what it means to be middle class. It's a jealousy, almost. People think they need two cars, a 2500 square foot house, three 50 inch televisions, an Iphone for every member of the family, etc. "Back in the day", the real middle class would have considered those people I just described as "rich" or the "upper class". Now it's what the middle class expects to have.

Rusty Jones
06-04-2014, 09:08 PM
They do get Medicaid, so just under 22k I guess. The Obamacare is about $120 a month, I think. Don't know the specifics for sure.

One of the biggest problems, I think, is that people no longer understand what it means to be middle class. It's a jealousy, almost. People think they need two cars, a 2500 square foot house, three 50 inch televisions, an Iphone for every member of the family, etc. "Back in the day", the real middle class would have considered those people I just described as "rich" or the "upper class". Now it's what the middle class expects to have.

Two cars (or one for each adult) and a 2,500 sq ft house I - or at least the ability to afford these things ARE middle class. Maybe the house doesn't have to be 2,500 square feet... but I'd say at LEAST 1,500.

WILDJOKER5
06-04-2014, 09:15 PM
They are both parties of the rich.

Marx described three necessary phases toward achieving his idea of utopia.

Phase 1: A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government. Marx emphasized the nee*d for total destruction of the existing system in order to move on to Phase 2.

Phase 2: A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen's personal choices -- including his or her education, religion, employment and even marriage. Collectivization of property and wealth must also take place.

Phase 3: Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia, everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top.

I'd say we're wrapping up phase 2.
Phase 3 never works either because communism is for the people, not the communist. Those in charge will never share what they have. Look at China or N Korea, there is still 3 distinct classes of people, and those on the bottom are suffering worse than 99% of the poor here in the US. The "middle class" in those societies are the military so they will stay loyal enough not to over throw the government.

WILDJOKER5
06-04-2014, 09:18 PM
$12 an hour is livable, depending on your location. It's certainly not "poor". That's why I gave a span of $25k to $75k.

Those who receive $25k from employment can usually gain at least another $10k from government handouts depending on location. And when the left says illegals don't get welfare and make "slave wages" at $2/hr, then its obvious that $2/hr is also a livable wage if you budget right.

Rusty Jones
06-04-2014, 09:25 PM
Those who receive $25k from employment can usually gain at least another $10k from government handouts depending on location. And when the left says illegals don't get welfare and make "slave wages" at $2/hr, then its obvious that $2/hr is also a livable wage if you budget right.

You mind quoting a liberal who said such a thing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 09:40 PM
The culture war is already over. The counter culture won it by using the tools of Political Correctness and Liberal collective white guilt. NeoCon+NeoLiberal takeover. Rainmaker finds Rusty's comparison to South Africa is an interesting one. Perhaps it 's the trial run for what the "elect" have in mind for this country. for whites to give up their property rights without compensation, followed by their civil rights in the country the founders left to them, or face violence from the 3rd world mob that’s flooding into the country and will soon be looking for free shit handouts that they're being constantly told they're owed by the ministry of propaganda (boob tube) . FORWARD TO HONEY BOO BOO AMERICA BITCHEZ!!!

WILDJOKER5
06-04-2014, 09:42 PM
You mind quoting a liberal who said such a thing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
Since I have never heard any "liberal" say that, I will redirect you to the left saying that illegals don't get welfare. Unless you are going to admit that illegals do receive welfare, as in food-stamps, WIC, and EBT cards for themselves?

Here is a nice blog from the left http://www.tolerance.org/immigration-myths


ndocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes but still get benefits.
Ask students what are some ways Americans pay taxes, as in income tax and sales tax. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes every time they buy gas, clothes or new appliances. They also contribute to property taxes—a main source of school funding—when they buy or rent a house, or rent an apartment. The Social Security Administration estimates that half to three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes, including $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security taxes for benefits they will never get. They can receive schooling and emergency medical care, but not welfare or food stamps.

Rainmaker
06-04-2014, 09:53 PM
Since I have never heard any "liberal" say that, I will redirect you to the left saying that illegals don't get welfare. Unless you are going to admit that illegals do receive welfare, as in food-stamps, WIC, and EBT cards for themselves?

Here is a nice blog from the left http://www.tolerance.org/immigration-myths

The GOP wants suppression of wages. The Dems want to permanently change the demographics of the country. It may take another 10 years or so. but, amnesty will pass. Until then we foot the bill. There is no conservative party allowed to exist in the reconquista.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 09:59 PM
Two cars (or one for each adult) and a 2,500 sq ft house I - or at least the ability to afford these things ARE middle class. Maybe the house doesn't have to be 2,500 square feet... but I'd say at LEAST 1,500.

Interesting. They're house is 950 square feet (2 bedroom, one, kitchen, living room, laundry room). Also, they are good with one car. My mom has never driven. Well, they do have two, if you count the "wood truck" ('75 Dodge). The main vehicle is a '99 Ranger. But, yes, they are middle class. Me and my two siblings were raised in this house. The 3 of us shared the bedroom...1 bunk bed and 1 single bed.

The $300,000 house you are speaking of is what people have become to think they are entitled to, or deserve, but is not necessary to live a comfortable life. I guess maybe we have definitions of what middle class is. I know what the government says it is, but I don't buy into that. They consider $200k middle class. That seems pretty rich, in my opinion.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 10:02 PM
Those who receive $25k from employment can usually gain at least another $10k from government handouts depending on location. And when the left says illegals don't get welfare and make "slave wages" at $2/hr, then its obvious that $2/hr is also a livable wage if you budget right.

They don't get any handouts, except for the Medicaid. If they make any more money then they lose the Medicaid (they're almost 65 so no point to go looking for another job).

Rusty Jones
06-04-2014, 10:15 PM
Interesting. They're house is 950 square feet (2 bedroom, one, kitchen, living room, laundry room). Also, they are good with one car. My mom has never driven. Well, they do have two, if you count the "wood truck" ('75 Dodge). The main vehicle is a '99 Ranger. But, yes, they are middle class. Me and my two siblings were raised in this house. The 3 of us shared the bedroom...1 bunk bed and 1 single bed.

The $300,000 house you are speaking of is what people have become to think they are entitled to, or deserve, but is not necessary to live a comfortable life. I guess maybe we have definitions of what middle class is. I know what the government says it is, but I don't buy into that. They consider $200k middle class. That seems pretty rich, in my opinion.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that they're entitled to a $300,000 house, as $15/hr won't buy anything near that.

Where does a 2500 sq house cost $300K, by the way? Maybe in Cali. I bought a 2,800 sq ft house in San Antonio for $162K.

I agree that it doesn't take a household income of $200K to be "middle class," but I don't think that three children to a bedroom is middle class either. Some states and cities place legal limits on that, and it's 2 in some places.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 10:22 PM
I agree that it doesn't take a household income of $200K to be "middle class," but I don't think that three children to a bedroom is middle class either. Some states and cities place legal limits on that, and it's 2 in some places. I guess we have different definitions of middle class. And for states to place limits on how many children can share a room is ridiculous. We were very happy and comfortable. Were we poor by the government definition? Probably. But we were nowhere near really being poor. Always had school clothes, shoes ($5 at the Safeway), 3 meals, ice cream on Thursday nights during The Cosby Show and Cheers. We had bikes, played school sports, etc. Always cut plenty of firewood to keep the house warm through the winter. None of that fits my definition of poor.

Rusty Jones
06-04-2014, 10:35 PM
I guess we have different definitions of middle class. And for states to place limits on how many children can share a room is ridiculous. We were very happy and comfortable. Were we poor by the government definition? Probably. But we were nowhere near really being poor. Always had school clothes, shoes ($5 at the Safeway), 3 meals, ice cream on Thursday nights during The Cosby Show and Cheers. We had bikes, played school sports, etc. Always cut plenty of firewood to keep the house warm through the winter. None of that fits my definition of poor.

"Working class" is probably what I'd use to describe that. "Middle class," if I had to put an arbitrary dollar amount on it, I'd say is a household income of roughly $75,000 for a family four. Maybe higher, maybe lower; but on $22,000 a year... you have to find "clever" ways to get by. Three to a bedroom? That's clever. Repurposing plastic grocery bags for trashbags; that's clever. Keeping plastic cups from fast food restaurants is clever. Covering your furniture when it needs to be replaced is clever. Hand-me-down clothes is clever. Using dish soap to make a bubble bath is clever

Not saying people who DO such things aren't middle class; but people who HAVE to do these things aren't. At $75,000 a year for a family of four; you have enough money to not have to find "clever" ways to get by.

Measure Man
06-04-2014, 10:43 PM
I don't know of anyone who thinks that they're entitled to a $300,000 house, as $15/hr won't buy anything near that.

Where does a 2500 sq house cost $300K, by the way? Maybe in Cali. I bought a 2,800 sq ft house in San Antonio for $162K.

I agree that it doesn't take a household income of $200K to be "middle class," but I don't think that three children to a bedroom is middle class either. Some states and cities place legal limits on that, and it's 2 in some places.

No, you don't have to make 200K to be middle class, but at 200K, you are still part of the middle class.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 10:52 PM
"Working class" is probably what I'd use to describe that. "Middle class," if I had to put an arbitrary dollar amount on it, I'd say is a household income of roughly $75,000 for a family four. Maybe higher, maybe lower; but on $22,000 a year... you have to find "clever" ways to get by. Three to a bedroom? That's clever. Repurposing plastic grocery bags for trashbags; that's clever. Keeping plastic cups from fast food restaurants is clever. Covering your furniture when it needs to be replaced is clever. Hand-me-down clothes is clever. Using dish soap to make a bubble bath is clever

Not saying people who DO such things aren't middle class; but people who HAVE to do these things aren't. At $75,000 a year for a family of four; you have enough money to not have to find "clever" ways to get by.

Had hand me down clothes, for sure, but we didn't reuse cups...we didn't have plastic on the furniture..etc.

Maybe people should learn to be more clever and people wouldn't always feel the need to have everything they ever wanted. It's about expectations. If the parents show that the money isn't the most important thing, the rest of the family will follow.

edit: and you're right...maybe working class is a better description

garhkal
06-05-2014, 06:36 AM
That's the problem with these bleeding-hearts...they never really think through their visits from the good idea fairy.

My wife has a Bachelor's degree and has been working in the same field for over 10 years and makes barely over $15 bucks an hour. Now these jackholes come along and try to say that someone with minimal education and experience deserves to make as much as someone who has invested in their education and has experience? I say B.S. and f.u. as well.

It is not an employer's responsibility to ensure that every job pays enough to support a family, when minimum wage jobs were never meant to do that in the first place.

The bottom line is that if you have minimal education and minimal experience, don't expect to be paid like those who have put in the time and effort.

Wonder if that point was raised by those who voted on this bill.

WILDJOKER5
06-05-2014, 12:08 PM
The GOP wants suppression of wages. The Dems want to permanently change the demographics of the country. It may take another 10 years or so. but, amnesty will pass. Until then we foot the bill. There is no conservative party allowed to exist in the reconquista.

There will always be a "conservative" party when you know your definitions of the words. There just wont be a small government party.

WILDJOKER5
06-05-2014, 12:14 PM
They don't get any handouts, except for the Medicaid. If they make any more money then they lose the Medicaid (they're almost 65 so no point to go looking for another job).

I didnt say all and I wouldnt have assumed yours did. Your parents sound like mine. Growing up, we had basics and my parents couponed and budgeted and saved for retirement. Now my parents live off their OWN retirement accounts and travel the country.

Sgt HULK
06-06-2014, 11:43 AM
Interesting. They're house is 950 square feet (2 bedroom, one, kitchen, living room, laundry room). Also, they are good with one car. My mom has never driven. Well, they do have two, if you count the "wood truck" ('75 Dodge). The main vehicle is a '99 Ranger. But, yes, they are middle class. Me and my two siblings were raised in this house. The 3 of us shared the bedroom...1 bunk bed and 1 single bed.

The $300,000 house you are speaking of is what people have become to think they are entitled to, or deserve, but is not necessary to live a comfortable life. I guess maybe we have definitions of what middle class is. I know what the government says it is, but I don't buy into that. They consider $200k middle class. That seems pretty rich, in my opinion.


Im sorry i've followed alon gon your posts and you just are not in reality any more. I applaud your stance and justifications but your parents situation is far and away the least realiastic in this country at the moment. The only comparison draws to single kids in terms of needs. I pay almost 20K a year alone just in day-care / summer camps when school lets out as both me and my wife have to work. 25K is middle class circa 1980's at best. My kids dont have phones, we dont have cable, and my truck is 10 years old. Times are different and what worked 20 plus years ago will not work today. Heck I paid 95 cents a gallon when i started driving. 25K at age 21 for me was king shit, because it was just me with no responsibilites. 25K today would bury me

sandsjames
06-06-2014, 11:49 AM
Im sorry i've followed alon gon your posts and you just are not in reality any more. I applaud your stance and justifications but your parents situation is far and away the least realiastic in this country at the moment. The only comparison draws to single kids in terms of needs. I pay almost 20K a year alone just in day-care / summer camps when school lets out as both me and my wife have to work. 25K is middle class circa 1980's at best

Well, since my mom didn't work she didn't have to worry about paying for day care, so if you want to add that in then I guess you could say their income is $43k. Is that not middle class? The time at home with 3 kids in the house was in the 80s. By late 80's it was just me.

So if you didn't have kids at home you had to pay for today and you reduced your income by the amount of money you spend on your kids you would still be the same "class" as you are now.

My whole point on this was to say that the amount of money for middle class has a range. I put the bottom of that range at $25k. Two people, no kids, no bills, sounds middle class to me.

Sgt HULK
06-06-2014, 01:54 PM
Well, since my mom didn't work she didn't have to worry about paying for day care, so if you want to add that in then I guess you could say their income is $43k. Is that not middle class? The time at home with 3 kids in the house was in the 80s. By late 80's it was just me.

So if you didn't have kids at home you had to pay for today and you reduced your income by the amount of money you spend on your kids you would still be the same "class" as you are now.

My whole point on this was to say that the amount of money for middle class has a range. I put the bottom of that range at $25k. Two people, no kids, no bills, sounds middle class to me.


it was, in the 1980's

sandsjames
06-06-2014, 02:08 PM
it was, in the 1980's

It was, in the 80's, with 3 kids and bills. It is, today, with no bills and no kids.

Stalwart
06-06-2014, 02:08 PM
A family (of two) with no bills (house paid off/no rent, cars paid off, no credit card debt student loans etc.) with 25k per year to cover food, clothing, electric/phone etc. would be right at the bottom of 'middle class'. Their net worth being pushed up by the house, cars & possessions.

All of that is also dependent on the area where they live. Comparing what my brother makes as a police sergeant in Bossier Louisiana ($55k) vice a police officer in New York ($80k +) makes it clear that where you live moves the median income for low, middle, upper class quite a lot.

Rainmaker
06-06-2014, 02:41 PM
There will always be a "conservative" party when you know your definitions of the words. There just wont be a small government party.

Ignorance is strength Winston.

Rainmaker
06-06-2014, 02:50 PM
Inflationary tax is a bitch. especially when the one party crony government full of grifters and its penny press continually lie to the populace about its existence in order to keep them from burning down the fucking banks.

sandsjames
06-06-2014, 02:57 PM
A family (of two) with no bills (house paid off/no rent, cars paid off, no credit card debt student loans etc.) with 25k per year to cover food, clothing, electric/phone etc. would be right at the bottom of 'middle class'. Their net worth being pushed up by the house, cars & possessions.

All of that is also dependent on the area where they live. Comparing what my brother makes as a police sergeant in Bossier Louisiana ($55k) vice a police officer in New York ($80k +) makes it clear that where you live moves the median income for low, middle, upper class quite a lot.

Absolutely the point I was making. This whole argument started because I said I felt that middle class was $25k to $75k. You've just agreed with the low figure. Now we could discuss the high figure if you want.

Rainmaker
06-06-2014, 03:08 PM
Absolutely the point I was making. This whole argument started because I said I felt that middle class was $25k to $75k. You've just agreed with the low figure. Now we could discuss the high figure if you want.

Don't confuse us wiff the facts. Rainmaker keep hearing these publik service announcements about 1 in erry 5 chitlins going to bed hungry. But, at the same time they keep saying they all fat lard asses because they can't afford to buy gluten free dog food or play outside.

CYBERFX1024
06-06-2014, 03:21 PM
Two cars (or one for each adult) and a 2,500 sq ft house I - or at least the ability to afford these things ARE middle class. Maybe the house doesn't have to be 2,500 square feet... but I'd say at LEAST 1,500.

This is one of the reasons why the prices of houses have gone up and the reason that people think having a 1000sq ft house I live in is small. I also only have 1 car for myself and my wife, and I make over $85k a year right. But we make do with less because we can.

CYBERFX1024
06-06-2014, 03:25 PM
I don't know of anyone who thinks that they're entitled to a $300,000 house, as $15/hr won't buy anything near that.
Where does a 2500 sq house cost $300K, by the way? Maybe in Cali. I bought a 2,800 sq ft house in San Antonio for $162K.
I agree that it doesn't take a household income of $200K to be "middle class," but I don't think that three children to a bedroom is middle class either. Some states and cities place legal limits on that, and it's 2 in some places.

Yes, in some parts of Cali (Victorville, Indio) you can get a house like that for that price. But here in Pasadena the starting price for a house is $400,000, and that's usually a 1 or 2 bedroom 1 bath house.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-06-2014, 05:53 PM
This is one of the reasons why the prices of houses have gone up and the reason that people think having a 1000sq ft house I live in is small. I also only have 1 car for myself and my wife, and I make over $85k a year right. But we make do with less because we can.

Interesting how homes in the 40's/50's were typically around 1100 sq feet for a family. One car, no cell, cable, direct tv, etc. Life was simple...and affordable.

CYBERFX1024
06-06-2014, 06:15 PM
Interesting how homes in the 40's/50's were typically around 1100 sq feet for a family. One car, no cell, cable, direct tv, etc. Life was simple...and affordable.

You are correct and the only outlandish thing that my family has is the $200 cable and internet bill a month. That's because I literally can't stand watch the basic channels (nbc,fox,cbs,abc) other than for sports. That's because the shows they run are literally crap and there are too many commercials it's like every 3-5 minutes of runtime. there's another 2 minutes of commercials. So that's why I usually watch premium channels or just stuff like a&e and natgeo. If I am watching a show that has commercials then it has to be at least decent.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-06-2014, 06:59 PM
Interesting how homes in the 40's/50's were typically around 1100 sq feet for a family. One car, no cell, cable, direct tv, etc. Life was simple...and affordable.

Nostalgic nonsense if you are trying to say that it was better to live in the 1940's or 1950's.

Salaries were also much lower, we had less technology, less medicine, less access to information, fewer opportunities for education, less ability to move between social classes.

There is no way you'd get me to trade my smart phone for a rotary phone, or one of those phones that you had to talk to a operator in order to place a call.

There is no way I'd trade in my 2012 Toyota FJ for a 1949 Plymouth. My Toyota requires minimal maintenance compared to a 1949 Plymouth and it a hell of a lot safer and more comfortable.

I watched an excellent show on my HDTV the other night called Fargo. There is no way listening to the Lone Ranger on a crappy radio would stimulate me for even five minutes.

I have a modern and efficient kitchen and bathroom; I would not want to trade that for some crappy kitchen and bathroom designed in the 1940's or 1950's.

I think life is much simpler today in most regards, and even the poorest amongst us have access to technological wonders when compared to the 1940's and 1950's.

sandsjames
06-06-2014, 07:09 PM
Nostalgic nonsense if you are trying to say that it was better to live in the 1940's or 1950's.

Salaries were also much lower, we had less technology, less medicine, less access to information, fewer opportunities for education, less ability to move between social classes.

There is no way you'd get me to trade my smart phone for a rotary phone, or one of those phones that you had to talk to a operator in order to place a call.

There is no way I'd trade in my 2012 Toyota FJ for a 1949 Plymouth. My Toyota requires minimal maintenance compared to a 1949 Plymouth and it a hell of a lot safer and more comfortable.

I watched an excellent show on my HDTV the other night called Fargo. There is no way listening to the Lone Ranger on a crappy radio would stimulate me for even five minutes.

I have a modern and efficient kitchen and bathroom; I would not want to trade that for some crappy kitchen and bathroom designed in the 1940's or 1950's.

I think life is much simpler today in most regards, and even the poorest amongst us have access to technological wonders when compared to the 1940's and 1950's.

If you ever come across a 1949 Plymouth with a good body and in running (or close to running) condition please let me know.

What the hell is an FJ??

Life isn't simpler, it's more convenient. A simple life is one that doesn't rely on gizmos and gadgets. A convenient life is exactly the opposite.

Rusty Jones
06-06-2014, 07:34 PM
After the death of most REAL SUV's (eg, Chevy Blazer, Ford Bronco, Dodge Ram Charger), before they became the soccer mom mobiles that they are today; the FJ is one of the few real SUV's remaining.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-06-2014, 07:36 PM
If you ever come across a 1949 Plymouth with a good body and in running (or close to running) condition please let me know.

What the hell is an FJ??

Life isn't simpler, it's more convenient. A simple life is one that doesn't rely on gizmos and gadgets. A convenient life is exactly the opposite.

Can't post images again. :(

http://www.offroaders.com/directory/toyota/images/toyota-FJ-Cruiser.jpg

Awesome vehicle! Reliable, safe, comfortable, and nearly maintenance free; I would not hesitate to hop in it and drive it from DC to LA if the notion struck me.

http://www.collectorcarads.com/Picture1/1949PlymouthJohnBB.jpg

The 1949 Plymouth is an unreliable death trap in comparison, and I wouldn't take it on a long trip.
It does look cool, though.

As far as simplicity verses convenience, stop acting like TJMAC77SP. I made a damn strong argument and you know it.

sandsjames
06-06-2014, 07:49 PM
Can't post images again. :(



Awesome vehicle! Reliable, safe, comfortable, and nearly maintenance free; I would not hesitate to hop in it and drive it from DC to LA if the notion struck me. And practical, too, for all the off-roading you do.


The 1949 Plymouth is an unreliable death trap in comparison, and I wouldn't take it on a long trip.
It does look cool, though.BS...hit the open road, light up the cigarettes and open the wing windows.


As far as simplicity verses convenience, stop acting like TJMAC77SP. I made a damn strong argument and you know it.Not a chance...that I'd ever admit it.

Simplicity means one doesn't rely on things for happiness. They won't panic if the internet goes out for a couple hours. They don't get pissed off at autocorrect making drunk texts so funny. And they definitely don't need an overpriced vehicle that is used for the same things that a 1993 Geo Metro can accomplish for a 1/4 of the price.

garhkal
06-06-2014, 08:05 PM
A family (of two) with no bills (house paid off/no rent, cars paid off, no credit card debt student loans etc.) with 25k per year to cover food, clothing, electric/phone etc. would be right at the bottom of 'middle class'. Their net worth being pushed up by the house, cars & possessions.

All of that is also dependent on the area where they live. Comparing what my brother makes as a police sergeant in Bossier Louisiana ($55k) vice a police officer in New York ($80k +) makes it clear that where you live moves the median income for low, middle, upper class quite a lot.

Very true. Heck watching house hunters i am surprised at the difference in house prices depending on where you live.. where a 2000+ sqft house in mississippi or kentucky could run you 170k, but the same house say in phoneix or seattle would run you 300+K.


Interesting how homes in the 40's/50's were typically around 1100 sq feet for a family. One car, no cell, cable, direct tv, etc. Life was simple...and affordable.

And how people back then (heck even into the 80s) had kids sleeping 2 to a room even after they passed 10 yrs old (unless they were a boy and a girl), but these days kids are demanding their OWN room and parents are caving into it, and only looking for a house which has 1 bedroom PER person +1.

Rusty Jones
06-06-2014, 08:24 PM
Very true. Heck watching house hunters i am surprised at the difference in house prices depending on where you live.. where a 2000+ sqft house in mississippi or kentucky could run you 170k, but the same house say in phoneix or seattle would run you 300+K.

As a caveat, you do have to factor in property taxes to find out what you're really paying. Although the 2,800 sq ft house I had in San Antonio was $162K, the property taxes there are high as hell. About $4 per $100 in value, if I recall correctly (and I'm sure TJ is gonna look this up, and call me out if I'm wrong. He likes to do shit like that). The mortgage payments (with insurance, property taxes, etc, etc, included) on a $162K house are the same as a $255K house here in Norfolk.

Granted, you can secure the property quicker/for lower cost when the house costs less, but you're still left with high property taxes afterwards, so still... it may actually even out in the end, at least to a certain extent, no matter where you go.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 12:53 AM
I will say the higher labor wages will likely induce some to invest in replacement technologoy, i.e. fast food automatic kiosks vs. cashier. But, that is going to happen anyway, but yes, raising the minimum wage will incentivize them to do it sooner rather than later.



Robotics and automation is the big thing to watch in the next 20 years. We already have the ability to create a fully automated kitchen for a burger joint or even a diner.

I'm not talking about just a kiosk to replace cashiers, but a fully robotic kitchen. It isn't that difficult to build a Big Mac, and I'm certain a big corporation like McDonald's can field a fully automated kitchen that consistently makes burgers faster, better, and cheaper than a human.

I see a day not too far away when most of these fast food jobs will be gone. There are scores of other jobs that can be automated also.

Big corporations will be the first to go robotic, but it will trickle down to every aspect of society.

The jobs for humans will be robot technicians that repair and direct robots.

I'm sure we will see the beginning of this in our lifetime.

The first generation of driverless cars are coming out in 2016; if you don't think we are on the cusp of another revolution in technology, you're not paying attention to what is going on in the world.

sandsjames
06-07-2014, 12:55 AM
Robotics and automation is the big thing to watch in the next 20 years. We already have the ability to create a fully automated kitchen for a burger joint or even a diner.

I'm not talking about just a kiosk to replace cashiers, but a fully robotic kitchen. It isn't that difficult to build a Big Mac, and I'm certain a big corporation like McDonald's can field a fully automated kitchen that consistently makes better burgers faster, better, and cheaper than a human.

I see a day not too far away when most of these fast food jobs will be gone. There are scores of other jobs that can be automated also.

Big corporations will be the first to go robotic, but it will trickle down to every aspect of society.

The jobs for humans will be robot technicians that repair and direct to robots.

I'm sure we will see the beginning of this in our lifetime.

The first generation of driverless cars are coming out in 2016; if you don't think we are on the cusp of another revolution in technology, you're not paying attention to what is going on in the world.

This is gonna suck...mainly for one reason. The robots are going to start a civil rights movement within 10 years of taking all the jobs. Shortly after that. Interbiologic marriages will be everyone within 25 years.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 01:21 AM
This is gonna suck...mainly for one reason. The robots are going to start a civil rights movement within 10 years of taking all the jobs. Shortly after that. Interbiologic marriages will be everyone within 25 years.

I doubt we have to worry about artificial intelligence anytime soon, but the next big divide between the upper and lower class will likely manifest in robotic enhancements to the body and increased lifespans of the rich.

We probably will not see that in our lifetime, but in 50 to 100 years, the rich will be cyborgs.

The beautiful people will have robotic enhancements and live exciting and fascinating long lives.

The poor will live shorter lives, but be well fed, poorly educated, sheltered in free housing, and be placated by cheap drugs, television, and dreams of winning lotteries. Kind of like it is today.

garhkal
06-07-2014, 01:58 AM
As a caveat, you do have to factor in property taxes to find out what you're really paying. Although the 2,800 sq ft house I had in San Antonio was $162K, the property taxes there are high as hell. About $4 per $100 in value, if I recall correctly (and I'm sure TJ is gonna look this up, and call me out if I'm wrong. He likes to do shit like that). The mortgage payments (with insurance, property taxes, etc, etc, included) on a $162K house are the same as a $255K house here in Norfolk.

Granted, you can secure the property quicker/for lower cost when the house costs less, but you're still left with high property taxes afterwards, so still... it may actually even out in the end, at least to a certain extent, no matter where you go.

Good point. And since you can get evicted from your property for not paying property taxes, i can't understand why they call it "Home ownership".. You are still 'renting it' just from the state, county or township you are paying property taxes to.

Rainmaker
06-08-2014, 03:54 PM
I know that, I was just giving a third option on ways a business can stay profitable. We do it at home, I mix flax seed in burgers to make the meat go further. There are only a few ways a business changes when their profits start to shrink; up the price, shrink the labor costs, and degrade the product materials.

Pink Slime. It's what's for dinner!

Rainmaker
06-08-2014, 04:13 PM
Good point. And since you can get evicted from your property for not paying property taxes, i can't understand why they call it "Home ownership".. You are still 'renting it' just from the state, county or township you are paying property taxes to.


http://goobingdetroit.tumblr.com/

Rainmaker
06-08-2014, 04:19 PM
This is gonna suck...mainly for one reason. The robots are going to start a civil rights movement within 10 years of taking all the jobs. Shortly after that. Interbiologic marriages will be everyone within 25 years.

I'm sure any day now Hollyweird will start bombarding us with commercials of trendy couples made up of cute Blonde women and cool robots, with "the stupid bumbling white guy" contrasted to this super cyborg for maximum psychological effect on our yoofs

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 04:23 PM
skynet is active !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rainmaker
06-08-2014, 05:19 PM
skynet is active !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get ya. NomSayin?

Stalwart
06-10-2014, 04:22 PM
And how people back then (heck even into the 80s) had kids sleeping 2 to a room even after they passed 10 yrs old (unless they were a boy and a girl), but these days kids are demanding their OWN room and parents are caving into it, and only looking for a house which has 1 bedroom PER person +1.

True fact. Our house was very modest but still had 3 bedrooms -- my parents had one, sister one, and my brother and I shared one until I was a sophomore. We shared the same bed until I was halfway through the sixth grade.

garhkal
06-10-2014, 07:27 PM
True fact. Our house was very modest but still had 3 bedrooms -- my parents had one, sister one, and my brother and I shared one until I was a sophomore. We shared the same bed until I was halfway through the sixth grade.

Exactly. I shared a room with my brother all the way up till i was around 14. I know plenty of other kids who did that and are not diminished cause of 'the experience'. So where are parents getting the idea that a 7-9 yr old needs his or her OWN room from?

Rainmaker
06-10-2014, 08:02 PM
Exactly. I shared a room with my brother all the way up till i was around 14. I know plenty of other kids who did that and are not diminished cause of 'the experience'. So where are parents getting the idea that a 7-9 yr old needs his or her OWN room from?

They get the idea from our bought and paid for, one party, big state government that has pushed its consumerist mindset ever since our manufacturing base has been moved to the 3rd world. Media propaganda and 24-7 Mass marketing (Read BRAINWASHING) is very powerful on the developing mind.

When you don't make anything, the only way left to grow the economy is if the citizens increasingly indebt themselves buying useless shit they don't need.

The profits are then sent to offshore tax havens (hedge funds owned by globalist corporations) in order to avoid paying taxes and then invested (Read GAMBLED) in the Wall Street Casino to inflate the same globalist corporations stock (with which they pay themselves multi-million bonuses with for driving the economy into the ditch).

GeoDude
06-11-2014, 02:16 AM
I doubt we have to worry about artificial intelligence anytime soon, but the next big divide between the upper and lower class will likely manifest in robotic enhancements to the body and increased lifespans of the rich.

We probably will not see that in our lifetime, but in 50 to 100 years, the rich will be cyborgs.

The beautiful people will have robotic enhancements and live exciting and fascinating long lives.

The poor will live shorter lives, but be well fed, poorly educated, sheltered in free housing, and be placated by cheap drugs, television, and dreams of winning lotteries. Kind of like it is today.

Took the words right out of my mouth.


They get the idea from our bought and paid for, one party, big state government that has pushed its consumerist mindset ever since our manufacturing base has been moved to the 3rd world. Media propaganda and 24-7 Mass marketing (Read BRAINWASHING) is very powerful on the developing mind.

When you don't make anything, the only way left to grow the economy is if the citizens increasingly indebt themselves buying useless shit they don't need.

The profits are then sent to offshore tax havens (hedge funds owned by globalist corporations) in order to avoid paying taxes and then invested (Read GAMBLED) in the Wall Street Casino to inflate the same globalist corporations stock (with which they pay themselves multi-million bonuses with for driving the economy into the ditch).

Consumerism is the key tenet of capitalism. Capitalism is all about production and consumption. You can't produce anything if no one is consuming. Essentially its a giant ponzi scheme - for our production to increase over time, people's consumption must also increase - even if its useless bullshit that you don't really need.

However - the general gist of your argument is correct - while you are not "required" to buy useless bullshit, there is huge social pressure to do so. If people stopped buying useless bullshit, the system would collapse. A good analogy would be war. If there was a draft and everyone refused to fight, obviously that war would be impossible - the government can imprison or execute a handful of draft dodgers - but they are powerless if the population as a whole defies their order.

garhkal
06-11-2014, 05:18 AM
However - the general gist of your argument is correct - while you are not "required" to buy useless bullshit, there is huge social pressure to do so.

Exactly. Its the keep up with the Jones principle.

Rainmaker
06-11-2014, 03:46 PM
Took the words right out of my mouth.



Consumerism is the key tenet of capitalism. Capitalism is all about production and consumption. You can't produce anything if no one is consuming. Essentially its a giant ponzi scheme - for our production to increase over time, people's consumption must also increase - even if its useless bullshit that you don't really need.

However - the general gist of your argument is correct - while you are not "required" to buy useless bullshit, there is huge social pressure to do so. If people stopped buying useless bullshit, the system would collapse. A good analogy would be war. If there was a draft and everyone refused to fight, obviously that war would be impossible - the government can imprison or execute a handful of draft dodgers - but they are powerless if the population as a whole defies their order.

Yeah sure. Rainmaker has read the wealth of nations and maybe even taken an economics class or 2 at his local Kommunity Kollege and he even would tend to agree with the basic premise.

But, we don't have "Capitalism" anymore in this country. What we have is Crony Monopoly Capitalism and there's a big difference.

When the means of production and all taxable profits are off-shored, our borders under siege by an invasion, the value of labor is continually being suppressed by making our citizens compete against 3rd world slave labor. then the system is not Sustainable, unless it's propped up with debt, Funded by inflation (which they mask by various means.) Our economic problems persist because our corrupt politicians continually allow OUR treasury to be looted, in order to enrich themselves and their owners at the expense of the citizenry.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ross_Perot_Free_Trade.htm

92-96 was our last chance to change the system.

The NEOCONs (BUSH,CLINTON-CLINTON,BUSH II, OBAMAO, CLINTON-CLINTONII-BUSH III...?) won and that's why shit is the way it is. But, I think our next best chance to fix this cancer may be coming again soon. In the mean time Learn the difference between deficit and debt, Learn the difference between Service economy and Production economy. Prophet ALGore invented the interwebs and gave it to the peoples. We don't have to stay stupid anymore Muhfuggas!!! NomSAYIN?? OVER .

GeoDude
06-11-2014, 04:14 PM
Yeah sure. Rainmaker has read the wealth of nations and maybe even taken an economics class or 2 at his local Kommunity Kollege and he even would tend to agree with the basic premise.

But, we don't have "Capitalism" anymore in this country. What we have is Crony Monopoly Capitalism and there's a big difference.

When the means of production and all taxable profits are off-shored, our borders under siege by an invasion, the value of labor is continually being suppressed by making our citizens compete against 3rd world slave labor. then the system is not Sustainable, unless it's propped up with debt, Funded by inflation (which they mask by various means.) Our economic problems persist because our corrupt politicians continually allow OUR treasury to be looted, in order to enrich themselves and their owners at the expense of the citizenry.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ross_Perot_Free_Trade.htm

92-96 was our last chance to change the system.

The NEOCONs (BUSH,CLINTON-CLINTON,BUSH II, OBAMAO, CLINTON-CLINTONII-BUSH III...?) won and that's why shit is the way it is. But, I think our next best chance to fix this cancer may be coming again soon. In the mean time Learn the difference between deficit and debt, Learn the difference between Service economy and Production economy. Prophet ALGore invented the interwebs and gave it to the peoples. We don't have to stay stupid anymore Muhfuggas!!! NomSAYIN?? OVER .

This is nothing new - Marx identified this as a problem with any capitalist system - just as nations consolidate power and consume smaller nations, businesses do essentially the same thing. Also throw in the mix that any large business will use that nation's power structure to try and gain an advantage. While we can blame the Neocons - and trust me I like them no better than you do - the problem is much older than Bush or Clinton.

Rainmaker
06-11-2014, 04:27 PM
This is nothing new - Marx identified this as a problem with any capitalist system - just as nations consolidate power and consume smaller nations, businesses do essentially the same thing. Also throw in the mix that any large business will use that nation's power structure to try and gain an advantage. While we can blame the Neocons - and trust me I like them no better than you do - the problem is much older than Bush or Clinton.

Agree. and from time to time it has be rooted the fuck out.