Resignations continue at a high pace , college enrollments are way down and now the number of people filing for unemployment is also on the decline??What are people DOING????
If they want to earn more, why aren't they doing what everyone else has to do, and upskilling? Why are they special? Why do they get an exemption from reality? Just 'cause? I have to ask what motivates you to want to exempt a sector of citizens from the cause/effect reality the rest of us must work with. Do you simply choose a soft target upon which to enjoy some noble righteousness? Or are you water carrying for the Elites ... wanting to bring on the Great Underclass as quickly as possible? Meantime, you cannot mess with those minimum wage entry level jobs by overvaluing them. There are plenty of people who - for reasons of their own - don't want anything more than that money and that level of responsibility. People who are happy to earn $10 or whatever, because that $10 means the buck stops nowhere near them. There are yet others who don't care to do the work of upskilling, and so will remain content with entry level. These two groups NEED those jobs to stay as they are.
I'm not asking you to give me the damn figure! I'm asking how it allows someone to LIVE (the clue that it's all about cost of LIVING is in the name, LIVING wage), when their cost of LIVING is entirely different to the next person's? Go ahead, explain please.
With respect, that's utter BS. One person can live on welfare, while their neighbour needs three jobs to live. The only person who can decide what 'sufficient' is, is the individual - because they are the ones choosing the standard of living which has to be supported.
Indeed. It's total codswallop. Much BS terminology to cover for the absurd premises. And not only do they never mention qualifications etc, but they completely ignore the fact that the guy who blows his dough on fast food & beer, and thus struggles to pay his rent/power bills etc, will say he doesn't have a 'decent standard of living'. That 'decent standard of living' benchmark can only exist if every individual has exactly the same habits and lifestyle. A patent nonsense - yet these sinister b@stards actually think we believe such things would be 'helpful'.
It IS the topic, when you keep discussing it. You're discussing something as absurd as flying pigs, but then refuse to address the absurdity when asked.
It isn't ANYTHING, because it's an absurdity. No one but the individual knows how much they need to live on.
If you, as you say, don't give a rat's ass about how this mythical 'living wage' is calculated, as it pertains to human performance vis-a-vis the dynamics of a free-market economy, then I, too, have lost interest. But I must say, you 'dance' more artfully than most in your Left-wing faction do... although that's not much of an accolade....
Nope. I prefer arguments from posters. For everything else I do my due diligence before posting and if you have any actual argument. Read my sig!!!
Sure I did! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-accelerating.593415/page-11#post-1073028905 "In practice"???? In practice, you go to a store to buy food for yourself and your family, and you have enough money to pay. Same for clothes, the rent... and the things mentioned on the link above. Dumb question... "Living wage" has nothing to do with that. Read the definition!!!
This thread has nothing to do with wanting to earn more. Just with... living. EVERYBODY wants to live.
I'm NOT discussing it. As a matter of fact, you try to change the discussion to it, and I keep refusing.
And when people in receipt of this 'living wage' spend all that money on good times and thus can't pay their rent? How is it then a 'living' wage?
Except for all those who CAN'T. If everyone had the same cost of living, we'd be robots. Seriously .. how are you unable to see that only the INDIVIDUAL can say how much is 'enough' to live on?
Sure, and people act according to how much they want to live. Those very driven to live, will work harder to make sure they do - whether that work is in paid employment or the self-discipline of frugality. Hopefully both.
Not my point. The point WAS, that two people on the same welfare money (to use the lowest possible income as the example), in homes attracting the same rents, can have very different standards of living. One might be ultra frugal - sharing rent with family, never spending a cent on anything but necessities etc - while the other might be very irrresponsible with money.
HOW people choose to spend their money is absolutely irrelevant. You are the master of irrelevancies, aren't you?
I'll say this only this once, because you are literally flooding this thread with irrelevancies. Economists calculate "living wage" all the time. And I have a fair general understanding of how the calculations are done. But it's IRRELEVANT to this thread. Got it?
Dude, you're the one championing an increase in minimum wage purely on the strength of people spending their money so unwisely that minimum wage isn't enough to live on. I'm the one arguing that that inconsistency in how people spend their money, is why it can't be a factor in such decisions. Meaning I'm the one saying it's so irrelevant that you can't build a policy on it. Do you even know what you're selling at this point? I don't think you've thought any of this through - not even to seek basic internal consistency.
Good for them. Now how does it actually work in the real world, when every individual has a different requirement of a LIVING wage? I have friends who need $2000 a week to live on, while others live on $2000 a month. Which one is the 'living wage'?
Every individual does not have different requirements of a living wage. You REFUSE to read the definition I posted. Can't help anybody with blinders.
