Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: It takes over 70 hours at minimum wage, to pay rent in most states.

Posted 2 years ago on March 17, 2012, 7:02 a.m. EST by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It’s got nothing to do with “fair”, it’s all about building an economy.

A “slave” based economy simply cannot work; do you guys really think it can?

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=10150674664707980&set=a.10150102060562980.286151.31151752979&type=1&theater

213 Comments

213 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by chell7 (7) 2 years ago

Well..this is likely to be the only post i can make, as it seems i have problems within one response. It is worth it to make it here as this is a good post factsrfun. Let me bring this into perspective for those with challenges to their critical thinking skills: It takes 70 hours of work, a week, at minimum wage, to pay rent. Not 70 hours in a month. 70 hours at 7.80 an hour amounts to 546$ a week before taxes..and generally, (very generally speaking,) a single individual will pay out approximately 22% of their income in FICA, income, state and other payroll taxes..even at such low wages. That brings the take-home pay to 425.88 a week; or 1703.52 a month. We are going to give our 'everyman' a decent place to live: safe, clean, but without amenities such as a gym, pool, weightroom etc. About 700-800$ in rent is average in most mid-sized cities, with rents of 500-700$ in suburban areas. Right off the bat, well near half of the income is gone. That doesn't include transportation, food, electricity, water, gas, toiletries, bank or check-cashing fees, maintenance for a vehicle, (if living in a suburban area, having a car is imperative,) laundry, any healthcare needs, and any other social/entertainment needs. Now we all know that when you add in everything but social/entertainment needs..you have pretty much blown your monthly income. That is your monthy income earned as: -a child-care worker whether in a private home or a daycare setting. -a nurse's aide -a service tech in 'quick' car type establishments..such as changing oil, lube jobs, tire techs etc. -a janitorial service worker. -school cafeteria workers. -many ancillary public education service provides that are 'non-professional' status. -almost every retail job that exists. -almost every food service job that exists, (the guys making your pizza, your burger, your sandwich etc..)

Now that is assuming you CAN get a 70 hour a week job..which you cannot. What you can do is work 2 or 3 or sometimes 4 jobs to try to meet your basic needs for living.

This is for a single person. Not for a family. MOST minimum wage earners have families and ARE the sole support of those families. i do not know what universe some of the posters here live in; but it is certainly not in today's american reality. i know people with degrees in physics who make pizza for a living..people who spent years going through apprenticeship, journeyman portions of a trade who are having to work at walmart.

A minimum wage is insufficient. A living wage is what is necessary. But i do not think it will happen. i think we are too far gone to even see any of the issues we face with any clarity at all. People seem to want to buy into the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" perspective, and all the presumptions/assumptions it entails.

i know NO ONE who has ever set out to be a minimum wage worker. i have never met anyone with an entitlement mentality. The 'welfare queen' is, and has always been, a fairy tale created to scare the populace into acting against it's own best interests.

Man i could go on for a whole lot longer..but what would be the point? Those who will hear me, already know these things..those who won't aren't going to listen anyway..

Some links of potential interest to those with eyes and ears: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/bassc/public/CompletePovertyReport082306.pdf

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/32/32003.html

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/barbara-ehrenreich-what-causes-poverty

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml SSRN is always a good source for the latest academic findings in poverty: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/JELJOUR_Results.cfm?form_name=journalbrowse&journal_id=1500171

And finally, a blog that is a personal favorite: http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

One of the clearest, most accurate comments on the subject, I've ever seen................................:)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you very much for stopping by. You are getting at what the thrust of this post is about. If we are to be honest about what people are paid, we must consider what is invested in making someone a suitable worker. It is required that you have a place to sleep and clean yourself for the next day at work, that you eat and transport yourself. Taking care of these things should part of any compensation package no matter the service provided by the worker. I think a little more for the worker themselves to is not too much to ask for.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

morning chell, I was wondering f you were able to get back to the forum, as a result of the talks here I have started to refer it as "the cost of providing labor" the empolyer should cover at least that so the taxpayer doesn't have to pick up the diffewrence in health care or housing

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Chell said:

"MOST minimum wage earners have families and ARE the sole support of those families. i do not know what universe some of the posters here live in; but it is certainly not in today's american reality."

According to the US Dept of Labor-http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm-

"Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, nearly 19 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over."

"Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less (about 9 percent versus about 3 percent)."

POINT-MORE minimum wage earners are SINGLE and are NOT the sole supporters of families -by a margin of 3 to 1.

Today's American Reality- 81% of hourly employed YOUTH between 16 and 25, and 97% of hourly employed ADULTS over 25 earn MORE than minimum wage.

[-] 2 points by chell8 (9) 2 years ago

One last link here..i cannot stress strongly enough to read about the topic at hand: poverty, as much as possible from as many sources as possible. And talk to people! i hear so many individuals make assertions about others and how they live, and oddly enough, when confronted about their relationship to these 'others,' it is virtually non-existent! http://povertynewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/low-wage-workers-in-america.html

(Source of the article shared at the blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201672_pf.html )

[-] 2 points by chell8 (9) 2 years ago

Let me clarify this for those who dispute that the majority of minimum wage workers are NOT single earners. A full HALF of the minimum wage workers are over the age of 24. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/visualizing-characteristics-of-minimum_10.html Women are disproportionately represented. Families, per the data from the .gov site, are measured by marriage and prior marriage..not by children. Another posting about minimum wage, with more information available from the main page on poverty: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

Random links about minimum wage earners from a variety of sources: http://www.epi.org/publication/increasing_the_minimum_wage_is_smart_for_families_and_the_economy/

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States (i truly hate sites that source the heritage foundation, but there are a multitude of sources here..and it presents relevant information.)

Love the breakdowns on the occupations available at this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

Finally..let me reiterate some of the jobs held by a minimum wage worker: -childcare, -janitorial, -cafeteria workers, -hotel/motel maid, -nurse's aide.

Just those 5 jobs alone, constitute a fair bit of employment..and i didn't even include retail jobs.

This is the american reality BetsyRoss..(what an ironic name!) America has turned into a service economy. Service jobs for the masses are typically, low wage settings. Ralph Nader on minimum wage: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/29-15

And please, (if you have not already,) read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed." Blog: http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

get some skills if you want more than minimum wage. It's time to grow up & aspire to something other than a high school job

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Here's a plan.........GET A BETTER JOB! Minimum wage jobs are for kids just starting out in life or slackers with zero ambition.

[-] 3 points by pavonianewport (11) 2 years ago

70 hours isn't even sustainable either, you'll die early and in misery.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Housing should be only about 20-25 % of income.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Working 70 hours a month? Rent is paid monthly. That is about 17.5 hours a week to pay rent. That certainly seems sustainable.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Really when a lot of workers are lucky to get 35 hours a week, and in a lot of those states it take over 90 hours, so half of the gross to rent, then what 10% for tax, another 8% for sales tax, that leaves 32% before you got gas and paid insurance on the car. Why don't you try to sustain that for a year.

[+] -4 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Stop putting so much overhead and tax burden on employers and they could be more "generous".

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Bullshit.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Make that double bullshit.

[+] -4 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Here's a brainstorm: Then don't make minimum wage. Here's some more advice: don't stand in the rain either.

I wouldn't try to sustain it, I'd try to change it. But that's something liberals think people should be exempt from even attempting.

You might also want to lend your support to no-skill labor by supporting an end to mass immigration of no-skill people. Even libtard ignorance of supply and demand doesn't mean it's repealed. Tightening supply will do more to increase low-end wages than government attempts at price fixing.

In between hand wringing sessions, you should also realize that most people earning minimum are NOT sole support for a household. They're kids or those providing supplemental income to some other source. Sorry, just a fact, on the odd chance that facts matter.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

WOW cut and paste I do that too, but into the same line without chainging a word? Are you a bot?

so here's my answer again:

There are many people all over the country that work at or within a dollar or so of MW, for years, not because they are not skilled, but because labor rates have been driven down by union busting. I know air line pilots that barely make more than MW if you got to work 2,000 hours a year.

What do you say to him, he has tens of thousands invest in his education, but with the GOP working the rules and the CEOs pushing on the job front, people aren't paid crap, that's the simple truth and the reason for our problems.

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Your premise is ridiculous. Skilled people, other then in temporary circumstances like a recession or for some other odd reason, don't make minimum wage without it being about them.

But if he really is making minimum wage, here's what I'd say to him. Support a moratorium on mass immigration of unskilled people and support enforcement of our immigration laws. Attacking low wages using supply and demand is a way better idea than trying to deny it by government price fixing.

We both want higher wages for low or no-skill people. We both want a better situation for employment. But it becomes about how to make that happen. Price fixing doesn't work.

Unions don't typically work either. Unions need certain conditions to succeed. They need restricted competition. They need companies that can pass on their higher costs in a competitive world. But to get that, they need either natural monopolies like in government, companies with few competitors (like Fedex and UPS), companies where all the companies are similarly facing unions (like airlines), or laws that restrict customer choice. So, if you want to advocate unions, just be sure to advocate them where they have a shot.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

According to you nothing works except to give the 1% whatever they want, not sure if you are saying even that would work as you offer no solutions at all.

I think that the problems with compensation stem from the fact that collective capital, in the form of corporation set wages for people who do not have collective bargaining power. I believe it should be a requirement of the incorporation that the workforce be unionized, this would provide for a more level playing field and lead to more sustainable wages.

[-] -1 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

No, not in the least. Look, you can work for the outcomes you want and deny principles of economics and human behavior and get no where, or you can take them into account and have a crack at reaching your goals. Your choice, really.

No-skill wages are made worse by us continuing to vastly oversupply the market. You want price fixing, I advocate tightening up supply. The biggest source of over-supply is our southern border.

Unions requires special circumstances to achieve the goals you have in mind, unless you plan to utterly strip people of their economic choices as customers. I dunno, maybe that'd be OK with you telling people which stores they can shop at and what products they can buy. If the circumstances aren't there, expect failure. It's really that simple. Don't plan on things working that can't work.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Taking into account the nature of people is exactly why we need more unions.

[-] 0 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

But the unions have those very same human traits and bring their own problems too. They've had corruption, obstruct the freedom of customers at every opportunity, and impede at times even the simplest and most necessary business decisions. They force dues upon those not even wishing to belong to the union and set themselves as gatekeepers and owners of the jobs.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yes we are all human, what shall we do?

Unions are democratic, people can vote out the leaders if they don't like what they do. We cannot do this with corporations as they are one dollar one vote not one person one vote. This is why Republicans hate unions, Republicans hate democracy, they always have, they fight for the king.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

That is a great visual. I checked my state and I would say that it is pretty accurate. Inhumane, I say!

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Truth is I got this from a facebook friend who is tied to the party, but hey this is a good one, I’m much more concerned about getting to the truth of things than worried about who’s telling it.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Facts are facts, factsrfun. I agree.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

THIS is my understanding of what OWS is really all about. The structural inequities built into the American economy over the past 30-plus years sustain a global corporatist cabal at the expense of the entire nation and the whole world's future. There is plenty of money to pay for everything we need to do, from properly educating our children to fixing our antiquated infrastructure and then some. But we may not be able to wrest it from the greedy paws of the criminal plutocracy until we empower Congress to mitigate the influence of money in politics and policy. And that will take a Constitutional Amendment overturning the Supreme Court's definition of money as speech and corporate personhood.

http://abolishcorporatepersonhoodnow.org/2012/02/25/the-human-rights-amendment-tackles-corporatism-plutocracy-and-the-supreme-court/

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I do agree with you, but to those that think that getting the money out is enough I urge you to look at Arizona, we passed Clean Elections in 1998, since 2000 I think all state candidates have been public financed, so when you see the stuff I put up here about the republicans in AZ remember they all got public money. Fixing funding is not enough you have to get rid of the republicans or you've done nothing.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/

http://www.wtsp.com/news/health/article/245169/12/AZ-bill-women-must-prove-they-need-contraception-for-medical-reasons

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

A total shit pit of kleptocracy v a little over zealous spending on yard signage? I'll take the yard signs.

“Do we really want public funds to pay for yard signs and auto dialers?” - Actually, yea.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

State laws aren't enough. There are too many powerful interests that can bypass State campaign finance laws and influence the issues and elections under the cover provided by the Supreme Court. Nothing will change at the State level until we overturn Buckley v. Valeo completely. And simply codifying campaign finance reform as an amendment isn't enough unless the definition of money-as-speech is overturned in the process. Corporatists are successful in controlling the GOP and part of the Democratic party by virtue of their ability and inclination to retaliate against officials who ignore their wishes. Remove their ability to retaliate and elected officials have no incentive to do the corporatists bidding in defiance of their own constituency.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I agree with most of what you say, I do believe that there is no substitute for watching what they do though. Remember there are always jobs after office, for friends, family, it’s not enough to fix the funding, though we must do that, we must also judge what they do.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Don't get me wrong I'm all for public funding, I'm just saying that alone is not enough.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey thanks for coming by, this won't be fast, I've seen this coming for 30 years, it is bad enough now that many more see it.

Is there enough?

I don't know, we make things a little better by turning out the GOP, then if somebody loses that shouldn't have the media wakes up, next cycle they ask in exits if you are an OWS supporter, as that number grows we win, our job here there everywhere is to keep the message "There is too much concentration of money and too much of it in our government" I hope that is the message without one the other is impossible and unless we address wealth we've done nothing.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Absolutely. The crux of the matter is runaway wealth. Libertarians would have us believe that humanity evolved individually, that each person has always been an island and that "society" is an artificial construct that ignores human nature.

Of course, the truth is that humans have always been social creatures and the earliest forms of "economy" were tribal in nature. Nobody would have been allowed to amass so much wealth that he or she could separate from the tribe. The tribe would simply kill or exile that person and keep all the stuff in the process. It's only by virtue of our specialized and compartmentalized society that wealthy sociopaths have been able to get away with their machinations. Hopefully, we're approaching a legitimate endgame this time around.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I agree, I think there have been very wealthy peopple for quite a while, it's just that we used to call them kings, some still do, and that is what they are trying to do, become kings where the government does nothing but their bidding

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Bingo.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people expect to pay for where they live by loan or rent

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The ratio of the cost of basic shelter to potential earnings is in almost all cases reflective of how “free” a society is. This is true when looking at monarchical societies or at corny capitalism where the government is an extension of the will of the wealthy, say in Mexico for example.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the US has the private FED

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Wasn't sure where you stood on that, didn't want to get polical, but I would agree.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Should be "The private FED has the US"

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

many are forced to work many jobs at less than 20 hours so the employer need not pay benefits

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

Why pay rent. I hear if you work at Foxconn, you live right there in the factory. What more could you want?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey I'm from the south, we used to do it that way all the time.

[-] 1 points by Umair (24) 2 years ago

A slave wage is only acceptable because there is government support for those that with families larger than they should have. If you make the minimum wage, than you need to get skills that are marketable and not pursue your dream degree in music.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You know I’m all for population control, but even I am not ready to let the government, or you, tell people how big their families should be.

[-] 1 points by Umair (24) 2 years ago

I'm not demanding that people be responsible and have less children but that they should fully understand what the costs of raising a child are. Something like $200,000 up to the age of 18 and doesn't include college.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What did you mean by "larger than they should have" should your emplyer be allowed to tell you how big your family can be? What did you mean then? Seems clear enough you think the answer to low pay is have fewer kids.

Why should you cover all the costs of providing labor to the empolyer and have nothing left for yourself? The mininum should be enough to cover costs pluss something extra for the worker.

[-] 1 points by Umair (24) 2 years ago

By "larger families than they should" I meant that couples in their 20s with 4 or 5 kids and having no special skills or training that would earn them a higher wage than minimum to support a larger family. Earning minimum wage will never be enough to support a family. So if the government didn't enable this by providing support, this burden would fall on the employers as people would be less willing to work for minimum wage and would demand higher wages.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

"one child policy" till your thirty, unless you happen to be born into money, yep I thought I understood your meaning, Your Majesty.

[-] 1 points by Umair (24) 2 years ago

If there are 6 people in your family and there is only enough income to feed 3 members, what do you think will happen? I'm not saying that people should only have one child but they should be able to at least feed the kids they have before they think of expanding. There are enough people on this planet already and if we don't control ourselves right now, nature will do it for us except it would be a lot worse.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course we could just make sure that if someone wants to empoly another that the pay be high enough soi that the cost of providing that labor is covered, right now 8/hr doesn't cover the costs even of one person let alone a family.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Your math doesn't work. Minimum wage in San Francisco is $10/hour. Full time pay is $1500 per month after taxes. Cheap rent (not barebones) is $1000 per month. People can't live on minimum wage cause they're dumb and spend the extra money on bullshit instead of saving it for a rainy day

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I did say "over" in your example it would be around 110 hours or more maybe.

I think people should be paid enough to cover the cost of working and still have a bit for themselves at a minimum.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

My math is at 40 hrs per week- people can't live on minimum wage because they're bad at saving money, not because the system is screwing them

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Then you had a very bad math teacher, if you think you can live on $500/mo after rent, and still show up for work looking like someone I would want to be there.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Of course you can live on $500 a month after rent. Food $100, base health insurance $100. Everything else is a luxury, which no one on this stupid forum seems to understand! If you want stuff like iPods, computers, designer clothes etc. Then you need to pay for it! There are plenty of thrift stores, goodwills, libraries, etc. There are assistance programs like Medicare, food stamps etc.

People need to stop complaining and suck it up!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Please forward the link to the health insurance which can be purchased for 100/mo..

Oh sscrew it clear that you are a lying ahole, good to know.

I do agree about sucking it up, when we raise the top rate back to 90% the 1% can remember those words.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I didn't say good insurance that's just basic coverage. Besides, health insurance isn't a right, as you want people to believe. If you want better insurance than Medicare or basic coverage, then you have to pay for it!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Cool just send the link to ANY coverage say a fifty year old guy can buy for $100, just so I'll know you're not a lair.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so no clothing? no shoes, no electric? no heat, no water? no toilet? no car? (ok if you live in a huge city with buses) cause whats the use of health insurance if you have to walk 5 miles to the doctor. and if you are acually eating on 25 bucks a week you are stealing.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Thrift store for clothes- power and water max $50 ( less if you have no tv etc.) minimum wage and assistance programs provide for bare essentials, not luxuries. New clothes aren't essential. Tv isn't essential. Hell even power isn't essential.

It's funny the things that people think that they deserve when they really don't. Shit ain't free, fool.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

my electric is 200 water 50 so now what?

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Well if you don't have enough income to power your lights, tvs and computers then you obviously can't afford that luxury. Having electricity is a luxury, not a right.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

your an idiot.. they condemn your house and throw you on the street for not having electric its deemed unsafe. and the point wasnt affording.. it was your ludicrous idea that a person can survive on rent paid and 500 bucks.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

good call

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks richard

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

Economists at Goldman Sachs estimate the annual yield on an investment on rental property nationwide averages about 6.3%, but can exceed 8% in cities that were hit hard during the housing bust, including Las Vegas, Detroit and Tampa. By contrast, mortgage bonds have average yields of just over 3%, and investment-grade corporate bonds are yielding about 3.5%, according the Barclays Capital U.S. Investment-Grade Index.

So much better for them to own your property than to let you own it - much higher return http://occupywallst.org/forum/fiefdom-in-america-land-discounts-for-the-wealthy-/

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

Stalin had propaganda too - I call on the American public to wake up to Wall Street and their corporate radio head propaganda.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

Rental rate in my area - $1200-1500 per month ... Mortgage = $800-$1000 (including taxes of about $500 per month - so in actuality the mortgage for a $120,000 home is about $500.00 per month.)

http://occupywallst.org/forum/fiefdom-in-america-land-discounts-for-the-wealthy-/
We need to limit the amount of land any one corporation or aka realty trust can own in a town or ban them from owning entirely any residential properties - Residential should be held separate from commercial property via zoning and kept out of the corporate / commercial business - enough said ....Petition anyone?

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 2 years ago

Well, you need to get 2 jobs, get some roommates, eat beans and rice, and get a grant or a loan and go to college or a trade school and make something of your life. Stop whining and recognize a minimum wage is for "beginners", not for careers .

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

We've already been doing that for the last decade just working as hard as can be to get laid off every other year - as the new corporate policy is to hire part time temporary labor and cut jobs so they can bring the salaries back down every two years (just when you finally got that new raise of .50 cents an hour turns out it was more than Wallstreet could handle) DownSize Wallstreet !! Downsize the Ignorance!!!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You mean go back to college, a lot of these people already have degrees.

I got a better idea, form a union.

[Deleted]

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

I'll chip in and get you that economics class if you promise you'll at least attend the first week. LOL. Stupid is one thing, but persistently stupid time and again despite dozens of posts telling you how stupid you are and why, not that's special.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Fact-

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm

"Among those paid by the hour, 980,000 earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage in 2009. Nearly 2.6 million had wages below the minimum. Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 4.9 percent of all hourly-paid workers."

Point: 5% of US hourly-paid workers are paid either at or below the minimum wage. 5% does NOT represent a "slave based economy".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If actual cost of providing labor to the emplyer, housing, transportaion ect. then hardly anything is left for the worker up to about $15/hr and that comprisies a lot of workers and a growing number.

[-] 0 points by Itsarepublic1 (0) 2 years ago

Here is a solution to all of your problems JOIN THE MILITARY you will be provided a place to live meals for free and a pay check every two weeks. If you don’t believe in the military then join the coast guard all the same benefits and you are protecting your country from illegal’s and drugs and you will get to live close to the water great for fishing or relaxing on the beach

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

Yeah there's a solution - put your life on the line so Wall Street can send you off to war to make billions from contract profiteering after you go home to your family broke with no limbs been there seen that Wall Street - fool them once shame on you fool them again shame on us. Did anyone else know that war contractors held mass conferences the same week as 9/11 to schmooze with politicians and finagle who got which contract to make which weapons? Maybe they even egged on the middle east just hoping and praying it would lead to war. Maybe Wall Street should be classified as terrorists? So while the poor blind - wheelchair bound vet recovers in a roach infested war hospital trying to figure out how to provide for his family - I hope that fat cat who swayed politicians and policy to get him there ...is really enjoying his summer on his yacht with his family.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not everybody can live off the government and the taxpayers.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Where are the brains of those who are working for "minimum wage" supporting a household?

I mean really, here you are, you have no working credentials so you have to work minimum wage - you knock up your girlfriend, have a child and complain because you live on minimum wage having to support a family.

How about you get a job, build your employment history, increase your income, pay all your bills and have enough money left over to put into a savings account.

Then after you have accumulated at least 2/3 of your yearly salary in your savings then, maybe then you get married and "You don't spend $10,000 on your wedding like a lot of the younger generation do thinking that that's cool and off to the carribbean for another $5,000.00.

Do you get the picture?.

[-] 7 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Or how about this: I'll do exactly what you suggested. I'll get a fairly good middle-class job, put away two years' worth of salary in a savings account, spend some of that on the wedding and the rest as a 20-30% down payment on a nice house with a traditional mortgage, continue saving until I can afford a car, and wait for my first child until after I've got another good few thousand put aside for prenatal and baby expenses. Sounds great, right?

Then I get laid off. Now what? Savings will give me a few months' cushion, but that's not going to last forever and unemployment won't either. At this point there is a very real possibility that I'm not going to be able to get re-employed at anywhere near my former wage rate anytime soon, so I take a job for $7-$8 an hour. Actually, I now have to take two if I want a living wage. Congratulations; I've done everything right and I still have to raise a family on minimum wage.

My point: you may discriminate between people who landed in poor situations because of their own poor judgement and people who just got screwed, but the fact of the matter is that all of them are still poor. Public policy can't really distinguish who wound up at the bottom of the barrel because they screwed up and who landed there by no fault of their own; what it can do is make life reasonably bearable for everyone by doing things like bringing the minimum wage in line with the cost of living for a family.

[-] 1 points by jamesluxley (29) 2 years ago

Good point. However I am sure the elite will make the minimum wage go down down down relative to the cost of living. Governments and king/queens job is to keep people on a level of alert all the time during life. Only if you hit %1 you can start to relax because of tax-reductions and befriending from higher levels and grease/fat/oiling your head.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Hate to disagree with you when it comes to "being employable". If a person wants to be employable with todays competition you have to be good at several occupations related to your field.

Again, it won't happen in two or five years like a lot of people would like to think. It takes time to increase ones income and wealth.

Sorry, but the "I want it all and I want it all now" crowd always disagrees when things aren't handed to them immediately.

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I understand what you're saying about employability being an issue here, but in this economy (and quite possibly for quite a while from here on out) being skilled in multiple sub-professions within a field (or even to a certain degree in multiple fields) still isn't that much protection against layoffs and downsizing. While it's true that someone may in fact sit on his ass and decide that a job is beneath him (at which point I say Adios Mother Fucker- you're your own problem now) it is at least as true that people meeting your criteria can and do wind up working for minimum or near-minimum wage jobs because it's the only option they have.

When somebody makes it that far and gets screwed, it's pretty much guaranteed that they'll do whatever they have to for themselves and their families, be that retraining or working at two or three near-minimum wage jobs to cobble together the needed hours. By raising the minimum wage you give those people more time to retrain and/or search for something better as well as more resources to pursue opportunities with. Besides, a lot of minimum-wage jobs out there are physically demanding, dirty, and often looked down upon because they pay so little; I'd argue that we should provide a high enough wage to give the people who hold these jobs some dignity.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

ARod - there are jobs out there - and to get one in todays market they have to be persistent. I think one of the biggest problems is people want "easy jobs" or jobs that have "status" instead of having to get their hands dirty.

I am talking about the younger people who aren't married, have a college degree. The ones who are complaining about not having a job. They just don't know how to "look for jobs" and what it takes to go get one.

Here is a link regarding jobs that require working in the oil fields http://ezinearticles.com/?Oil-Field-Jobs---What-Are-Working-Conditions-Like-On-The-Oil-Field?&id=1152480

Here's another link for someone "young" who wants to apply

http://www.oilworknetwork.com/

http://www.entryleveloilrigjobs.com/

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

These are great jobs, and I think you and I can both agree that this is the sort of the thing we need more of (I'd prefer they be in a different industry, but when times are hard jobs are jobs and $80K a year off the bat is nothing to be sneezed at). Hell, I don't care who wants to look down their nose at me; that's a professional-class salary. There was another article I saw earlier about businesses finally beginning to realize that they need machine operators and old-fashioned craftsmen, only with the ability to handle computerized equipment, and they're willing to pay accordingly.

It's something we've lost in the last thirty years around the same time that we began shedding our working class. The jobs may actually come to be there (and it appears they're already starting to come back), but the pipeline is broken and needs repairing. What I'd like to see is the rebirth of a parallel post-secondary track alongside the academic track responsible for providing technical and vocational training for jobs of that sort, and the simultaneous rebirth of our manufacturing industry.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I'm most likely not going to be one of the people taking those positions (unless the market for electrical engineers and/or computer scientists/codemonkeys evaporates in the next few years; unlikely but you never know), but I want to see it happen anyway; our nation will be stronger in every sense of the word as a result. In the meantime, raising the minimum wage and improving working conditions for everyone else should make the transition easier and hold people over until that transition comes.

[-] 1 points by flip (6803) 2 years ago

you did a very nice job here but i don't understand why you debate with an idiot - he clearly has no idea how the world works outside is upper middle calls neighborhood - seems to me a waste of time

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Because SteveKJR isn't an idiot, at least not in the sense that you're thinking. Between this and other exchanges I've had with him he's told me enough about himself that it's clear he's not some pampered jackass from the burbs. Basically, everything that he's demanding others do when he posts he's most likely actually done at some point in his life, including chasing jobs across the country Okie-style, and I really respect him for that.

My point here is just that the world would be a much nicer place if neither he nor those who came after him had to live that way, and things like increasing the minimum wage as well as social safety net allocations and re-unionizing the workforce are steps in the right direction. The only thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is why someone who knows all too well how tough it is to live this way would be unwilling to smooth the path of those who come after him...

[-] 1 points by flip (6803) 2 years ago

ok, point taken but i disagree with the idea that everyone can have a good job in this country - we can't all be lawyers, or have phd's - we can't all make 250k - it just is not possible. i am all for people working to get ahead but if you look at income data many households that work hard long hours make very little money. someone has to clean the toilets in the motel 6 and ring the cash register at burger king - those jobs will never pay well (unless we move to a swedish model!). ok, so they go to community college and get ahead - they have to push someone out to get their next job and someone must take their place at the motel 6. from my point of view your guy does not understand how the world works - income is funneled to the top and often those who make the most do very little productive work - goldman come to mind? if the pie were divided better we could all work less and 80% of the working population would make more!

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I don't have a problem with that; what I'd like to do over the long haul is basically eliminate as many minimum-wage service jobs as possible and replace them with better, higher-paying manufacturing jobs. For the few people stuck in those jobs, though, I am firmly in favor of minimum wage increases and unionization because no job should pay so little that you can't really raise a family on it, and there is no reason why people in those jobs shouldn't be able to have some form of dignity (which they're not really going to get without at least one of those things).

[-] 1 points by flip (6803) 2 years ago

we agree

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28194) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Besides the fact that a lot of those minimum wage employers are making very nice profits. They could not do that with no workers. The workers in any company are part of that company and as such deserve to reap the benefits of success just as much as any other member of the company.

Period.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

There are trade schools out there and community colleges are working with industries to proivde employees. I worked on a job in Cattlesburg, KY years ago at a coal gassification plant.

They employed college students during the summer months to prepare them for a job down the road.

This can and does work in a lot of areas - estimating, civil engineering and of course you have your trade schools.

A college degree may not always be the best choice depending on what't going on with the economy. Todays college degree is like having a high school education. A person needs to do more in order to get a job in todays market.

Example a friend of ours young guy around 24 just graduated from college - has volunteered time working with the county in the jail system and took courses in criminal law.

Because of his background and experience he now has the opportunity to enroll in the police academy - only 30 were chosen. In addition to that he smart, won't take no for an answer ( mainly because I kept getting on him about his whining about not having a job) and his persistence.

So, as I stated there are jobs out but again a lot of the younger folks don't know how to look for them - they think the area where they live should have a job for them when in fact that is not the case anymore.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What's next? Tell the vegans to work in a butcher shop?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Hey, if it's a job and good pay, why not

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Some people have ethics and morals.

We don't all think like WallStreet.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Sometimes you have to put your "ethics and morals" aside when it comes to being able to "survive". I mean hell I lived in a camper for more then 5 years travling across the country looking for work.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm happy that worked out for you. Unfortunately not everyone is in a position to do that.

I lived in my car for a while too, and held a job . Even back then rent was high and wages were low. On the other hand, in the 70s recession there were jobs to be found.

During the Great Reagan Layoffs, there were few to be found, especially if you had started a family during better times, because wages hadn't increased much and I was making pretty good money in the years before the layoffs hit.

This one?? I have to wonder, in what years you spent so much time looking, because this one is fierce, and low wages are everywhere and getting lower. You did notice that costs have gone up?

During all that, I maintained my ethics and morals and still took what I could find. It was a tough and complicated time in the 80s, and we barely made it through and only then because of other factors that I'm not going to go into..

This ones, much worse.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, I've always worked construction. I don't know if you read what I posted about the jobs I have done over the year - but it's because of being able to do different jobs in the construction field related to my trade I always had work.

During the 70's I worked in Boston on the Twin Towers at Logan International Airport. - late 70's traveled to NO and worked out at NORCO Shell Oil refinerie.

From there, during the 80's traveled to Alabama, Kentucky, Florida and eventually ended up in Georgia late 80's at Plant Vogtle.

86, moved to Atlanta - 5 job offers the first week and the rest is history.

During the course of my career I have always improved my job skills and that's what kept me employed - of course being agressive about traveling around the south looking for work helped too.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Getting into construction, isn't that easy. You need to apprentice with someone. Even harder in this recession.

Thanks for a job well done Steve. I respect what you've done.

I'm just saying that things are very different now than they were back then, and not everyone want's to wander the country, from job to job.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

you just said you'd put away 2 yrs pay then it will only carry you 2 - 3 months? it wont last forever? do you not plan on ever getting a new job either? Maybe it's time for a career change. Are you taking classes at night to change careers if your field is changing? On the other hand - what is it you expect your government to do to help you avoid the pitfalls of life?

By no fault of their own? Really? what percentage of the people in poverty can say they are there by no fault of their own? How many got pregnant as teenagers, have no skills, dropped out of school, are on drugs? Tell me - don't make unsubstantiated statements leading everyone to believe EVERYONE in poverty is there by no fault of their own. STOP !

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You are seriously sick and unbelievably dense as a brick. You have no concept of reality beyond your disgusting biases.

What don't you get? Economic power = political influence = more economic power= more political influence = greater economic power = greater political influence, ad infinitum

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

This is what leads to wealth concentration. Resulting in a record number of people living below the poverty line in 50 years since it started being measured. So that now 80% of the population holds only 10% of the nations wealth. How did this all happen? Did all these people suddenly become lazy drug addicted drop outs?

MYTH: Poor people are unmotivated and have weak work ethics.

REALITY: Poor people do not have weaker work ethics or lower levels of motivation than wealthier people (Iversen & Farber, 1996; Wilson, 1997). Although poor people are often stereotyped as lazy, 83 percent of children from low-income families have at least one employed parent; close to 60 percent have at least one parent who works full-time and year-round (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2004). In fact, the severe shortage of living-wage jobs means that many poor adults must work two, three, or four jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute (2002), poor working adults spend more hours working each week than their wealthier counterparts.

MYTH: Poor people tend to abuse drugs and alcohol.

REALITY: Poor people are no more likely than their wealthier counterparts to abuse alcohol or drugs. Although drug sales are more visible in poor neighborhoods, drug use is equally distributed across poor, middle class, and wealthy communities (Saxe, Kadushin, Tighe, Rindskopf, & Beveridge, 2001). Chen, Sheth, Krejci, and Wallace (2003) found that alcohol consumption is significantly higher among upper middle class white high school students than among poor black high school students. Their finding supports a history of research showing that alcohol abuse is far more prevalent among wealthy people than among poor people (Diala, Muntaner, & Walrath, 2004; Galea, Ahern, Tracy, & Vlahov, 2007). In other words, considering alcohol and illicit drugs together, wealthy people are more likely than poor people to be substance abusers.

Deficit Theorist -

Deficit theory suggests that poor people are poor because of their own moral and intellectual deficiencies (Collins, 1988). Deficit theorists use two strategies for propagating this world view: (1) drawing on well-established stereotypes, and (2) ignoring systemic conditions, such as inequitable access to high-quality schooling, that support the cycle of poverty.

The implications of deficit theory reach far beyond individual bias. If we convince ourselves that poverty results not from gross inequities (in which we might be complicit) but from poor people's own deficiencies, we are much less likely to support authentic antipoverty policy and programs. Further, if we believe, however wrongly, that poor people don't value education, then we dodge any responsibility to redress the gross education inequities with which they contend. This application of deficit theory establishes the idea of what Gans (1995) calls the undeserving poor—a segment of our society that simply does not deserve a fair shake.

If the goal of deficit theory is to justify a system that privileges economically advantaged students at the expense of working-class and poor students, then it appears to be working marvelously. In our determination to "fix" the mythical culture of poor students, we ignore the ways in which our society cheats them out of opportunities that their wealthier peers take for granted. We ignore the fact that poor people suffer disproportionately the effects of nearly every major social ill.

They lack access to health care, living-wage jobs, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, and so on (Books, 2004)—conditions that limit their abilities to achieve to their full potential.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

How about you stop? Stop acting like a disgusting despicable deplorable sub-human biased theocratic deficit theorist. It's people like you who would continue to perpetuate these problems rather than acknowledge them.

Far easier to cling to your biases and faulty assumptions.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You know they can't handle reality. That's why they push their false biases so hard.

Thanks for this accurate posting........:)

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Thanks for the encouragement. : )

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thank you for putting so clearly, what many of us struggle to express.

You are an asset to the truth...................:)

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha - You know you've conceded when you substitute substance for name calling. Thank you. If I am poor it is all the more reason to not do drugs, get pregnant etc. It is not good enough to just be equally deficient with other social classes in these areas. If I am to improve my lot in life - I need to do better !

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Stupid crappy sub-human needs to be called out as stupid crappy sub-human. Besides calling you out for the stupid crappy sub-human you are, I gave you facts. You refuse to acknowledge because you are a stupid sub-human piece of crap.

You are so unbelievably simplistic. "I need to do better" !! That is the most simplistic piece of crap I have ever heard.

You refuse to acknowledge reality. More people are in poverty not because there are more lazy drug addicted dropouts. More people are in poverty because of socio-economic policies that puts them at a disadvantage. Inadequate healthcare. Lack of opportunity for a living wage job due to job extraction. A public school system that is only average compared to the rest of the world at best. Many public schools in lower socio-economic areas that are failing. Do you ever hear about schools failing in higher socio-economic areas? So what do you think happens to those kids when their public school fails them? Is that their fault too? Is it their fault that they did not recieve a decent education and millions of low skilled and blue collar jobs have been moved overseas? 1025% increase in the cost of a college education over the past 30 years. So when a college education is more important than ever, the cost of it is increasingly out of reach. Government policies that favor the wealthy enabling the rich to get richer. All at the expense of the lower and middle class.

Your answer - "I need to do better"? wtf?! Do better at what? Do better at finding a living wage job that doesn't exist because millions of them were sent overseas? Do better at getting a college education that is unaffordable?

Please. Do tell! What exactly should 46 million Americans below the poverty line do better at?

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

you liberal complicate life to no end. I suggest you read Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Why is it do you think college costs have increased so much? Because the govt is giving out free money. So the colleges know they can increase the tuition. Get real! Go to a State University like I did - paid cash - no debt. worked my way as a bartender never had no money issues. All you people have is excuses.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Your college education - what was that - like 30 years ago?

That is such a load of crap! I'm not giving you excuses. I'm pointing out the reality of the situation. Over the past 30 years the quality of public education has deteriorated, lower and middle class wages have stagnated, the cost of college and healthcare have drastically increased and millions of living wage jobs have been lost overseas. Even the period of economic growth before the recession did nothing to help the incomes or wealth of the lower or middle class. But the wealthy made out quite I well I notice. Now why do you suppose this is? I suppose THEY all read Thomas Paine! lol.

We are where we are. What would you have 46 million Americans in poverty do better at? Read Thomas Paine? That's your answer?!

You are really unbelievable. You have no answer and you would simply do nothing but perpetuate the current dangerous socio-economic policies that got us here in the first place.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha - try 20 years ago. State schools have always been affordable. If you want to take out a loan to go to some fancy private school so you can show off to people as a social status that's your business - just dont cry about it when it blows up in your face because you majored in Womans studies or some other ridiculous program.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

State school cost is increasingly unaffordable! Do your own research. I'm so sick of you.

That you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the sitiuation, and all you can offer is "read Thomas Paine", tells me all I need to know.

You are psychopathically delusional.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yea - SUNY - 5K a year if you cant swing that you dont deserve to go. Work, save loan - please enough excuses. Why not start out at a community college? are you telling me you cant swing that? financial aid etc. how about a tech school. 6 months and you can start earning a nice income & build on that. enough with the excuses.

[-] 4 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

OMG. Are you completely stupid? The average annual cost of a 4 year state school in 2010 was $14,870. That is nearly double the amount from 20 years ago (inflation adjusted). State aid has been declining and has not kept pace with tuition increases!

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NCES 2011-015)

Enough with your idiotic delusions. You have zero concept of reality. You are mentally ill. Get some help.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

http://www.suny.edu/student/paying_tuition.cfm - Like I said 5K If you want to live on campus then you pay for it. Otherwise stay & home, work a job & get your education. Like I did. Stop being a crybaby.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

OMG moron. SUNY undergrad enrollment is 460,000. How about the other 16 million undergrads? They will pay an average of $15k/year for a state undergrad education. That's double the amount you paid 20 years ago. Yes I know. They should all just read Thomas Paine. sigh.

You're such a conserva-troll. Get some help for your conserva-troll mental illness. You clearly have had a serious mental break with reality.

Tell me conserva-troll, what is the cause of 30 years of middle class wage stagnation? oh nevermind. You never answer a question. Because you cannot acknowledge the truth. That these are problems caused by right-wing socio-economic policies. Instead all you can do is spit out your idiotic nonsensical blubbering crap. Read Thomas Paine, go to SUNY (wtf?), stay home, go to work, sit down, stand up.

You are a psychopathic, delusional embecile.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

OMG - what's with the hysterics? does that include room & board? or is that the tuition itself?

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There are many people all over the country that work at or within a dollar or so of MW, for years, not because they are not skilled, but because labor rates have been driven down by union busting. I know air line pilots that barely make more than MW if you got to work 2,000 hours a year.

What do you say to him, he has tens of thousands invested in his education, but with the GOP working the rules and the CEOs pushing on the job front, people aren't paid crap, that's the simple truth and the reason for our problems.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Correct me if I am wrong but the last time I heard, airline pilots are required to work a certain amount of hours per week - and it's not 40 hours - more like 20 or so.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

True, but what I am saying is not that his hourly rate was that low but because he was only working so much each year, and he had to spend a lot of "nonworking time" at the job BTW, but he only made about what a full time MW worker would ~$15,000/yr actuallly he made a little more. But my point that these people who just say "get more training" are not addressing the real issue, that even well trained people are getting paid squat these days. Unless they are "from a good family".

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well they could change occupations -

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I know what you mean I picked up an RN recently, funny thing still no interviews, and I thought they needed those, maybe things would be better if people were paid a decent wage.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

If everyone followed that advice, who's going to fly the planes?

I want experienced, highly-trained professionals flying the plane that I'm riding on. I expect them to be compensated well in exchange for keeping me and the other passengers from crashing into a mountainside.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you do not understand that 85% of the population has an i.q. of less than 105? you really dont know that? how do you expect people with out the intellectual wherewithal to think like that? it amazes me that most very intelligent people do not understand that they are an exception not a rule. but still they expect weaker minds to tackle the complexities of life with the same acumen, same drive, same fortitude.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey did I read the same comment as you?

I would put, steve's IQ at no better than 95 myself.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I think it's more an indication of values. Humans will take actions based on what they value. If they value family they will have one. Most working class people were raised with working class values. One day, humanity may stop valuing those things and they won't happen. Then who will feed and clothe the 1%? Surely not themselves lol.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it took less money to have a family in fact half the population were not working for money not so long ago

^that's probably a myth

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

As long as the people you consider intellectually challenged have the same rights as everyone else they must accept the same responsibilities. Even if they lack the drive, acumen, and fortitude they still have to accept the consequences for their actions. Treating people like children or as pets to be eternally cared for isn't a solution.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

im replying to the guy that thinks every person should start thier own business and get wealthy or die.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

100 is "average" intelligence, so 85% over that is a good number.....

It's the 75 and below that have real problems

[-] -1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Maybe if Liberal "geniuses" would stop spreading feelings of entitlement and victimization to people they would start thinking differently.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, there is such a great attempt with millions of dollars in taxpayers money to educate these people why is there a problem?

[-] 4 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you cannot educate past the capacity of knowledge. its like trying to pour a gallon of water into a half gallon pitcher. just doesnt work. the education is to take them to thier highest potential. the fact that that is not as high as required to succeed is not the problem of the education system

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

It takes 3 generations for change to happen within a society. Look back and it's apparent we as a society have moved forward with regard to "knowledge".

However, there are "leaders" and "followers" and there are those in between.

So, maybe 3 generations from now things will be better.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

so we can go to war with Iran

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

That is a propagandized stereotype - you believe everything your Reich Wing Corporate Radio Lords spew - don't ya? Get back to your construction project - or you may not get to get to file your disability claim this summer.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Have to say working in all areas of construction provided me with a great income over the years. In addition to that so did jobs as pipefitter, welder, welding inspector, supervisor, general foreman, HVAC technician, estimator, operations manager and company manager.

Can you say the same?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

Well if it wasn't a state union very sorry for your loss cause you aren't working now - or your time is limited ... and if it was your are plainly a hypocrite working off of over-inflated wages on taxpayer handouts.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Elf3 - you sound bitter. Let me ask you

First off how old are you?
Second, how much job experience do you have? Third - if you have been working for at least 12 or so years how have you improved your job skills so that you will have a better job over time?

Just curious.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

owww- hit a nerve did I? He's on the offense folks should prepare next time and cover your dick up before you come in swinging with your legs wide open - why are you on here anyway? - what interest do you have in posting here? - do you just like to argue because clearly you are not part of this protest ... People have the right to come to a place and formulate a protest against their government - clearly you know we have power or you wouldn't be here bothering - seems awfully strange to me that you would waste your time on any of us "useless and lazy no point" activists - the cause takes sympathizers any time you want to join when wallstreet comes for you - you just let us know - we'll reserve a space for you (or maybe by then we'll just say we told you so and let you eat your money when the dollar isn't worth the paper it's printed on.)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

don't answer

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Still waiting for your answer. Usually people who criticize others has a "ego problem" and as such criticism makes them feel better.

Why don't you "man up" and answer the question without being so rediclously childish. I didn't slander you - just asked a few questions.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

How about you woman up - and maybe then we'll be on even discussion ground

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Now you are acting like a idiot - go away.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

this is my protest site - unless you're part of the cause how about you go away

[-] -2 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 2 years ago

Steve-great message and I'll take it one step further...If you are making 35,000-50,000 and are paying rent, do not buy a car with a 500.00 car payment because it somehow "defines you" and an ad attacked your brain. Cars=conveyances. Do not pull plastic out of your wallet- use cash...Even people who are above minimum wage live like idiots...Everything comes down to choice... Steve had a great idea..50% bills-30% savings-20% spend....

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2504) 2 years ago

Well - Wall Street has another idea = downsize, outsource, and wage repression oh and now they want taxpayers to buy them properties at a discount so they can rent to you at an inflated rate:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/fiefdom-in-america-land-discounts-for-the-wealthy-/

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Then people should be able enough to get jobs that pay more than min wage. Its their fault they are stupid.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

people should get higher wages, maybe if the all those stupid republican voters would wise up we will

[-] -1 points by jewieboy (1) 2 years ago

at least 70% goes to rent 18% food which leaves 12% for gas phone bill and car insurance but since some asshole hit and run on me and my insurance won't pay my claim I now have a totaled car

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28194) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

WTF with a name like that you will go nowhere here.

Why do you even bother to try SFB?


jewieboy

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined March 20, 2012

[-] -3 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Minimum wage jobs weren't designed to be livable wages. Most of them are made up of "skills" that are just out of reach of what a highly trained monkey could do. And in many cases, the monkey could actually do it well too. Raising minimum wage just makes that wage, whatever it is, very small. Most of your socialistic views sound great, Utopian, until you take those ideas and put a small amount of "extra" thought into them.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It is often useful for the ruling class to dehumanize the peasants, something the Royals have been taught for centuries.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Yep... I'm just waiting for the bill that requires the poor, gays, non-Christians, and Muslims in particular to start wearing stars on their clothes...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don’t think a law like that would be constitutional, but I don’t think the GOP would have any problem if your employer wanted you to do that, wear the star I mean, if it was his religion or something like that.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

an adult, living on their own, should have skills and experience that exceed minimum wage compensation.....and if they don't, the fault is their own.....

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

According to the government, about 5% work for MW, and over half of them are over 25.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat45.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat44.pdf

But this may not tell the whole story, a lot of people don’t get to work 2,000 works a year, with MW being about $15,000 if you do, then collage grads are not doing so well.

http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/7617/New-study-shows-45-of-college-graduates-earn-less-than-15000year-while-tuition-costs-have-risen-2x-the-rate-of-inflation-and-4x-the-rate-of-wage-growth.aspx

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

that would be about 2.5% at MW.....I don't see that as a problem....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Other data shows as many as 147 million making so little they don't even pay income tax.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

"so little"

with the allowable deductions families can earn into the 60+k range and owe no taxes......hardly "so little"

and there are millionaires who pay no taxes through sheltered investments, massive charitable donations and small withdrawals of interest for living expenses......

and your figure of 147 million is false.....there are only (according to the BLS "civilian labor force" numbers...)154 million people in the work force...I am certain 147 million of them are not free from income tax.....

you really like to propagandize.....huh?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The cost of providing labor to the employer and a wee bit more for the worker should be the minimum allowed.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I'm sorry...are you going to ignore your distorted lie in the above comment and just deflect to another comment.......typical...

Employers don't set the minimum wage...they just respond and react to it.....by eliminating jobs and consolidating tasks to others.....

I tell you what...YOU start a business and then YOU can pay your employees whatever you like....and I am sure they will flock to work for you since you will be giving them the best deal......

good luck

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you know that may be a lie because I got that from a Republican, so i'll give you that, teach me to listen to a Republican, anyway cost of providing the labor and a bit for yourself should be in the law

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and so /? they should die? thats your answer?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, they should reassess their lives and work towards the end of improving their skills and experience, not look to government to mandate that they remain static and be allowed to earn more for doing the same, or less, in exchange......there ARE consequences for foolish behavior, it's time we stopped protecting people from the one thing that might motivate a change for the better..

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and they should do this how? by living under a bridge and eating out of dumpsters? and how is it you think they know the difference between what you think is foolish and what they think is normal? you assume they are of normal intelligence . you think living in poverty is not a life of horror in and of itself? you think people do this because they WANT to do it? you do know that only women with children are on welfare? you cant get welfare unless you have children you do know that. there are no men getting welfare unless they are actually there being fathers. so you are only targeting women . you cant pick one segment of people to inflict with laws because you dont agree with thier behavior. welfare millionaires take tax money too.. the government supports farmers and teachers and oil companies , every public servant all the way up to the president is getting your tax money.. you cannot single out one and say they are to be controlled and manipulated because they are getting gov money

[+] -4 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

What jobs are paid at minimum wage.Be specific. Please detail all the jobs that are at minimum wage.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Are you kidding me, how far out of the real world do you live?

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

no answer. I thought so.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

According to the government, about 5% work for MW, and over half of them are over 25.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat45.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat44.pdf

But this may not tell the whole story, a lot of people don’t get to work 2,000 hours a year, with MW being about $15,000 if you do, then collage grads are not doing so well.

http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/7617/New-study-shows-45-of-college-graduates-earn-less-than-15000year-while-tuition-costs-have-risen-2x-the-rate-of-inflation-and-4x-the-rate-of-wage-growth.aspx

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

good studies i would like to see how many of those workers in the first link were part time workers and for the last one i would wonder what type of degree those kids got. Because we are dealing with degree inflation at the moment along with the baby boomers staying in work to long

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

$10/hr is still far less than $20,000 per year, given the number of people working less than 40 hours, and pay roll and sales taxes that are on first dollars earned. Truth is that the whole system benefits those who already start at the top and make it very hard for those trying to get a start in life.

We should reward work, I think a big tax increase on the top brackets to pay for complete elimination of taxes on the first several thousands earned, enough to cover the basics, would be in order.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yeah i say we need to refine our system honestly ive gotten more money back than i ever paid in taxes. college kid min wage job

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

However if you have any loans, your "taxes" will be going directly to the 1%, without passing through the government as they often do, but taxes just the same.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

well yeah but that is some of their business also some of that loan money comes back to you if you have money in that bank. Intrest does get paid back to you.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yes the business of leading money to people in desperate need and then owning their lives forever is one of the oldest businesses around, you got that right.

[-] -2 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Fully 1/2 of the stats you cited are in the restaurant industry which does not count tips. So 2.55 of the workers in regular type jobs work at minimum wage, as I thought. So this MW stuff is just a smokescreen.

I myself never hire anyone at less than $10/hr. Thats a person completely green, no experience at all, high school or LESS education.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I bussed a lot of tables and never got a tip, washed a lot of dishes too for that matter.

[+] -5 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

Why is that a problem?

Living alone is a luxury. Globally most people live with others under one roof.

[-] 5 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I guess your point being that Americans should live more like the Chinese, I would prefer it move the other way, but you’re entitled.

[-] -1 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

I wasn't suggesting what anyone should do.

But since you mention it, it is healthier for people and the earth when we do share space. if you want to label a superior way of doing things (good for humanity and the planet) as Chinese, I'm all for it! However, in most American communities, native and immigrant, people live together in some way......and always have.

Living alone is a luxury. Few can afford it. Of those who can, most will choose not to for a long period of time.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not sure why you are focusing on this living alone thing, people have to pay rent even when they live with someone else, doesn't mean we can't demand a decent wage.

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

What is the point of the headline and the graphic?

Your link points out accurately that a two bedroom apartment is unaffordable at minimum wage. I'm not sure why a minimum wage jobholder needs a two bedroom home. However, the market sets the rent. It is affordable for 2 people at minimum wage. I'm not suggesting it is ideal. I'm also aware that it was never affordable. So again, why is it a problem?

Are you saying that it should be affordable? How do you propose we do that? Do we demand that employers pay more or do we insist that landlords charge less? And by how much? You are calling the current situation wage slavery.

I am saying only that this is not new and not unexpected. It is not only a prudent fiscal move to live with other people, it is what almost everyone does anyway. That is why I ask, "why is it a problem?"

[-] 4 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

In the town next to mine it is illegal for more than two people that are not directly related to share an apartment.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Just proves how GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION into our lives has more negative results than positive. That is one DUMB law.

[-] -2 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

Those local laws are generally for fire safety reasons, to prevent a landlord from packing 9 people into a two bedroom apartment.

The headline "70 hours at minimum wage to pay rent" was what I was responding to. For two people, that is one week's pay, or just under 25% of their combined monthly earnings. Coincidently, that's an ideal percentage of earnings to spend on rent or mortgage payment.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh two in a studio both working, storing slaves two by two is cheaper.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28194) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wage slavery is very real.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Understanding simple core things, this is how we win, the day to day story changes, the truth doesn't.

As we better understand the basic principles, it is easier to see the details of how they control the economy to their benefit.

Thank you for helping us do this.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28194) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you this is a good team to be on.

[+] -6 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Slaves, yes, we are all slaves. So terrible..

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Tell me how hungry would you have to be to offer your daughter?

Easy to talk crap now, but the GOP see no limit to what an employer can make a condition of employment.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/health/article/245169/12/AZ-bill-women-must-prove-they-need-contraception-for-medical-reasons

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

What does that have to do with what I posted?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

As a citizen you have “rights” but under the GOP as an employee you have none., The GOP would have the employer do what the government cannot, given this it is only a matter of time before your boss wants to deflower your bride.

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

Why point out the obvious? Or are you implying that being slaves isn't terrible?

[+] -6 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Wow, making minimum wage and trying to support a household would suck. You see this a reason to weep and wring your hands about your helplessness. Others, see it as MOTIVATION to not make minimum wage and try to support a household. Standing out in the fucking rain sucks too, but most of us would experience that as motivating a move indoors.

Also, most minimum wage earners are kids or aren't the main or sole source of support for their household. Just a fact.

And if that isn't enough of the obvious for you, try supporting a reduction in mass immigration of unskilled people. You leftists are good at bitching about problems, but not so good at obvious solutions. Want higher wages for no-skill people? Quit flooding the market with no-skill people. That's really fucking hard to figure out, huh?

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Your "fact" about kids is a lie by the way.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (7029) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I guess if you are putting your "household" into a studio, you make a point.

What are you saying, living in cardborad is fine for 10's of millions?

I don't agree.

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

But the fact remains that most min wage earners aren't supporting a household.

If you really want to do something real, stop flooding the market with other no-skill people looking for those same jobs. But liberals won't do that. They rather smear anyone capable of understanding supply and demand as a racist and then take a shot at price fixing.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

still living the market dream

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

The "market dream" has produced the highest standard of living ever seen by humanity. It's fascinating how you liberals don't in least seem interested in dealing with that reality about the system you hate.

Simple facts: 1) Most minimum wage earners aren't supporting households; 2) Mass immigration of unskilled people aggravates the wage problem for no-skill people. Supply and demand isn't a concept that's arguable.

If you honest to God want to see low-end wages rise, controlling supply will do more good than government attempts at price fixing.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

efficiency, order and cooperation has produced the highest standard of living

and ofcource, the ability of humans to adapt quickly

to changing technologies

[-] -1 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Brought to you by the freedom of a market system that unleashes all the things you've talked about.

Of course, the irony is that you're in this system, but still can't get it. It's really kinda funny.

And, again, simple facts:1) Most minimum wage earners aren't supporting households; 2) Mass immigration of unskilled people aggravates the wage problem for no-skill people. Supply and demand isn't a concept that's arguable.

If you honest to God want to see low-end wages rise, controlling supply will do more good than government attempts at price fixing.

Funny too how you can't take on the obvious points I made.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it is the job of the poster to support their statements

[-] -3 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

LOL. That's hilarious! What is it with reason and liberals that causes such problems?

Simple facts:1) Most minimum wage earners aren't supporting households; 2) Mass immigration of unskilled people aggravates the wage problem for no-skill people. Supply and demand isn't a concept that's arguable.

If you honest to God want to see low-end wages rise, controlling supply will do more good than government attempts at price fixing.

And that doesn't even begin to address the whole "victim" bullshit and how one shouldn't find motivation, but rather a reason to cry, in making minimum wage.

[-] -1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

They are very good at avoiding LOGICAL points. They usually respond to questions or facts like yours with "Racism, Inequality, Low Wages, Anti-Religion, etc. etc. etc.". Anything to "divert"

[-] -2 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Just another "hater" . LOL. They emote, they don't reason.

[-] -2 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Stop talking sense. You are getting in the way of the Liberal Utopian Agenda.

[-] -2 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Thank you for speaking the TRUTH!

[-] -2 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Thanks. Our voices are few on this site.

It isn't that hard. Yes, making minimum wage MIGHT suck (assuming you're that minority of cases trying for real to live off of it). But then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And if policy wants to help, CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDER. They call them libards for a reason.