Tiered minimum wage?

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i have friends who are fire fighters. the most qualified person doesn't get the job because of A.A. would you want your life in an unqualified fire fighters hands? i agree originally this would help balance out the good old boys network. but now its almost working as reverse discrimination

Obviously, there are instances where AA cannot apply; for instance a U.S. spy in certain countries in the middle east obviously can't be a woman. That's not discrimination in the true sense, that's just common sense.

At any rate, I was speaking of an over-all policy shift towards academic acceptance side of AA, not about meeting job quotas.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Bottom Line:

Our country has a huge problem with poverty. I don't know what is considered a liveable amount, or how they determin that... so I can't comment on that alone.

I do however think affirmitive action should be adjusted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe a rich black male who's father is a doctor gets admitted into school before a vietnamese immigrant does. The system is skewed and outdated.
------------------

Here's a thought. Let's not base AA on race, but rather poverty. Is it harder to grow up dirt poor or a minority?

If anyone takes offense to this I am sorry, and I do sympathize with minorities. I don't mean to take away from an issue as serious as race, but rather to shed light to an issue that isn't really talked about enough. There needs to be a great deal of legislation passed to battle racism and nepotism that exists in both politics and throughout the country.

I do however, believe that the #1 issue in this country should be helping educate the uneducated, and to eliminate poverty. Reaganomics is BS and I'm sick of it...

I know I'm all over the place... but I had to give my 2 cents. -all love

That's a horrible idea. It would reward those who haven't worked hard to improve themselves (aka lazy) instead of rewarding those who have worked hard, studied, stayed out of trouble and actually WANT to improve themselves.

So under your "AA" plan, two job candidates come in. We'll use myself...3 degrees (one with full scholarship) and plenty of job experience. Then we have a young man from the city who couldn't afford to go to college but also didn't work hard enough or care enough to try for a scholarship to get some further education. He's been working a part-time, minimum wage job and spends the rest of his free time hanging out in mall parking lots with his friends instead of trying to improve himself.

So...the employer wants to hire the driven, educated, experienced person...but their government-enforced quota says he needs to hire another poor person to "help them out", so he must hire the lesser-qualified candidate.



Heck, this idea actually makes the current, racist AA policy look better.


Any one can work themselves out of their current situation in America. Immigrants (legal) come in with no money, no real education and can barely speak English and they are able to start their own businesses and make a great life for their families. Why? Because instead of whining and putting their hands out for help from the taxpayers, they work hard for 16 hours a day...they study and they dedicate their waking hours to improving themselves.

There is a serious mentality problem in America, moreso than a poverty problem. Even these "poor" people have a car, a TV and every appliance that the rest of us have. They have more than the richest people of some nations. We give them welfare checks and instead of using them to get OFF welfare, they put up a satellite dish on their rowhome and get chrome rims on their $200 car. I work in the city and I see it every day.

The reason there are so many people on government assistance is because we keep giving it to them. They have no incentive to work and make something of themselves...they can sit at home and watch Oprah while the rest of us work hard to earn THEIR living. We need to put serious limits on welfare. If you are able to work, you will work if you want to eat. If you have an injury and need some assistance, ok...but there's a strict cutoff date. If you are disabled or elderly and absolutely can't earn enough of a living...ok, we'll help you. Also...stop having babies if you're already having trouble feeding the ones you have...so no increases for the people who stay at home and have kids to increase their monthly check.



2 Thessalonians 3:10, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”

[GhettoDogAllStars]

I just wanted to add something: many people paint a picture of ease and luxury when they describe people on welfare benfits. I can guarantee you that it is NOT fun, and most welfare recipients would be happier with a secure job with decent pay. If welfare is so great, why don't we all quit our jobs and go on welfare? It's not because we like to work -- most hard working people would quit their jobs if they could.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Buster

That's a horrible idea. It would reward those who haven't worked hard to improve themselves (aka lazy) instead of rewarding those who have worked hard, studied, stayed out of trouble and actually WANT to improve themselves.

So under your "AA" plan, two job candidates come in. We'll use myself...3 degrees (one with full scholarship) and plenty of job experience. Then we have a young man from the city who couldn't afford to go to college but also didn't work hard enough or care enough to try for a scholarship to get some further education. He's been working a part-time, minimum wage job and spends the rest of his free time hanging out in mall parking lots with his friends instead of trying to improve himself.

So...the employer wants to hire the driven, educated, experienced person...but their government-enforced quota says he needs to hire another poor person to "help them out", so he must hire the lesser-qualified candidate.

I agree with what you're saying but I think the intention of the idea was that if two candidiates are equally qualified then consideration should be given to the one that is living at or near the poverty, as far as AA is concerned.

[gibbsisgod]

I think this thread is getting way to political for this board and is in danger of getting locked.

I will say that for every single mother who really needs help from welfare, there are 2 people who take advantage of the system and live off of the goverment.

the minimum wage is no where close to where it should be. Somebody quoted that the cost of living has gone up by almost 15% in the last 7 years. I think its way more than that considering Health Care costs. My healthcare premiums this year alone increased by almost $1000. My 2% "cost of living" increase is gobbled up by that and I am still left struggling to make MY 'LIVING WAGE'.

I made 50k last year. I have 3 kids and a wife that works part time making about 8-10k a year and we STRUGGLE to get by.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

I think this thread is getting way to political for this board and is in danger of getting locked.

I will say that for every single mother who really needs help from welfare, there are 2 people who take advantage of the system and live off of the goverment.

the minimum wage is no where close to where it should be. Somebody quoted that the cost of living has gone up by almost 15% in the last 7 years. I think its way more than that considering Health Care costs. My healthcare premiums this year alone increased by almost $1000. My 2% "cost of living" increase is gobbled up by that and I am still left struggling to make MY 'LIVING WAGE'.

I made 50k last year. I have 3 kids and a wife that works part time making about 8-10k a year and we STRUGGLE to get by.

That 8 to 10k your wife is making is probably what you pay in taxes each year. So she is really working to make up what you are paying in taxes. What I have said in past post is that just increasing min. wage does not solve any problems. The only solution is for a person to want to improve their life to make any difference. Just look to the new Will Smith movie about a homeless guy who is now a millionair. I know that won't happen for most people but there is no reason that a person cannot make 12 to 15 dollars an hour with a little drive. I have to many friends that own their own business and cannot find people to show up and work. The jobs they have are from 55k a year to 10 dollars an hour. They all say the same thing about the revolving door with employee's. Yes they do have alot of good employees but they also struggle to find ones willing to work. I also know that a given area has alot to do with the job market so I'm speaking for my area as I see things.

[gibbsisgod]

I just don't see the min. wage as the major problem here. To many people just don't want to work. We have to many people in this country that are the first ones in line for a handout but are the last ones in line looking for work. I have 2 relatives that are 2 of the laziest people that you would ever want to meet. One is scamming the shit out of the unemployment office and the other is 30 years old living with his mom, he hasn't had a job since '02.

Goverment assistance is a good idea when it is used as it was first intended. To get someone who has fallen on hard times back on there feet, not to support the no-account lazy mofo's who just want to recieve handouts.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

I think this thread is getting way to political for this board and is in danger of getting locked.

I will say that for every single mother who really needs help from welfare, there are 2 people who take advantage of the system and live off of the goverment.

the minimum wage is no where close to where it should be. Somebody quoted that the cost of living has gone up by almost 15% in the last 7 years. I think its way more than that considering Health Care costs. My healthcare premiums this year alone increased by almost $1000. My 2% "cost of living" increase is gobbled up by that and I am still left struggling to make MY 'LIVING WAGE'.

I made 50k last year. I have 3 kids and a wife that works part time making about 8-10k a year and we STRUGGLE to get by.

This is going to sound really insensitive, but... maybe you shouldn't have had three kids on a salary that only pays 50k a year? Knowing that kids are on the way, (you've got 9 months of preparation for each) that gives plenty of time to prepare, save, find a second job, work on higher education or job skills ...

And maybe the wife should work full time? There are so many opportunities in this country that you can use to better yourself and your situation rather than use the government to force arbitrary wages on employers because you didn't prepare adequately.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

This is going to sound really insensitive, but... maybe you shouldn't have had three kids on a salary that only pays 50k a year? Knowing that kids are on the way, (you've got 9 months of preparation for each) that gives plenty of time to prepare, save, find a second job, work on higher education or job skills ...

And maybe the wife should work full time? There are so many opportunities in this country that you can use to better yourself and your situation rather than use the government to force arbitrary wages on employers because you didn't prepare adequately.

As much as I want to say f you buddy, I wont because in some ways you are right.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was dead broke or anything like that. My bills are paid, I owe no credit debt(other than 1 car payment) and I live pretty well considering where I live. I am not poor by any means but I do live paycheck to paycheck with liilte or none left over for savings.

It was our choice that my wife doesn't work fulltime so she would be home with our kids(where she and other mothers belong). When she did work we lived much better.

The point I was trying to get accross was this: My income hasn't increased near as much as the cost of living. Every year I get a 2-3% increase but it seasm my cost of living goes up 5-10%. I understand my kids play some part in that but they have nothing to do with raised taxes, increasing health care costs, and things of that nature.


Its wrong of you to judge me and my situation when you don't know all the facts. I have NEVER gone without a job. I have never applied for any kind of Goverment assistance whether it be unemployment, welfare or otherwise. I think I have done pretty good for myself considering the cards I have been dealt in life. I have never asked for help because I have the ablility and the drive to do it myself.
And maybe thats what I should have said to begin with.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Buster

That's a horrible idea. It would reward those who haven't worked hard to improve themselves (aka lazy) instead of rewarding those who have worked hard, studied, stayed out of trouble and actually WANT to improve themselves.

If you read a little further you'd see

Originally Posted by Robh4413

If we're going to design buildings for those less fortunate (handicapped) why not continue to design a society meant to help the less fortunate. I by no means imply we all sacrifice ourselves so poor drug addicts continue to get there fix and stay poor.I do think, however, that designing an incentive laden path (community colleges are an excellent example) for those who want to become more successful and haven't had the oppurtunity is an ideal solution.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Buster

So under your "AA" plan, two job candidates come in. We'll use myself...3 degrees (one with full scholarship) and plenty of job experience. Then we have a young man from the city who couldn't afford to go to college but also didn't work hard enough or care enough to try for a scholarship to get some further education. He's been working a part-time, minimum wage job and spends the rest of his free time hanging out in mall parking lots with his friends instead of trying to improve himself.

So...the employer wants to hire the driven, educated, experienced person...but their government-enforced quota says he needs to hire another poor person to "help them out", so he must hire the lesser-qualified candidate.

Originally Posted by Robh4413

At any rate, I was speaking of an over-all policy shift towards academic acceptance side of AA, not about meeting job quotas.

kinda touched on that one too...

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

As much as I want to say f you buddy, I wont because in some ways you are right.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was dead broke or anything like that. My bills are paid, I owe no credit debt(other than 1 car payment) and I live pretty well considering where I live. I am not poor by any means but I do live paycheck to paycheck with liilte or none left over for savings.

It was our choice that my wife doesn't work fulltime so she would be home with our kids(where she and other mothers belong). When she did work we lived much better.

The point I was trying to get accross was this: My income hasn't increased near as much as the cost of living. Every year I get a 2-3% increase but it seasm my cost of living goes up 5-10%. I understand my kids play some part in that but they have nothing to do with raised taxes, increasing health care costs, and things of that nature.


Its wrong of you to judge me and my situation when you don't know all the facts. I have NEVER gone without a job. I have never applied for any kind of Goverment assistance whether it be unemployment, welfare or otherwise. I think I have done pretty good for myself considering the cards I have been dealt in life. I have never asked for help because I have the ablility and the drive to do it myself.
And maybe thats what I should have said to begin with.

Well I could understand if you wanted to tell me to f... off -- I knew those comments were somewhat "biting". Anyway, no, I don't know your whole situation. My response was based only on the information you gave (3 kids, you make 50k/year, wife works part time).

My main contention is that petitioning the government for a higher minimum wage is asking for government assistance.

The other things people often mention like, "I have X number of kids, so I can't afford to live on that" -- that doesn't wash with me. First off, you shouldn't be reproducing if the best you can do is minimum wage.

I also think people easily forget the risk that is involved with owning your own business, i.e., being an employer. It takes so much time, capital, hard work, and the possibility of failure is so much greater when you start a business. Add to that the responsibility of hiring people - the trust that's involved with those hirees -- it's a major headache. Then on of top all of that, a completely unrelated third party (the gov't) forces that person at the point of a gun to offer a minimum wage -- in some cases a wage that is much higher than the person is worth. When that happens, the employer's budget goes out of whack, and he either has to adjust his hiring down, or make up the cost for the higher wage into the price of the product or service he offers.

I could go on and on. The minimum wage is a socialist concept. Let the free market decide wages, and let individuals negotiate their own salary without interference from government.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The other things people often mention like, "I have X number of kids, so I can't afford to live on that" -- that doesn't wash with me. First off, you shouldn't be reproducing if the best you can do is minimum wage.

Amen brother!!!!

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I agree with what you're saying but I think the intention of the idea was that if two candidiates are equally qualified then consideration should be given to the one that is living at or near the poverty, as far as AA is concerned.

That would be ideal, but that's not how the REAL AA works, despite being developed under that idea. It's just not something we could fairly enforce forever, so I don't think we should even start with it.

[dmek25]

[quote=Beemnseven;270421]

My main contention is that petitioning the government for a higher minimum wage is asking for government assistance.


quote]
this is a ridiculous statement. at any place of employment, a standard raise, as long as the company does well, is expected, yearly. when is the last time you went without a raise? its been like 9 years that the minimum has been raised? any small business that doesn't do well usually doesn't last very long. and since the govt feels obligated to normally side with ownership on such labor issues, the minimum stays the same. why penalize the people that are willing to work these jobs? then you start getting into the illegal immigrant thing. i do not want people to get too comfortable in these jobs, but they should be able to survive, also