Compare the benefit to what an entry-level teacher positions makes in the state of New York.
Jump to content
Posted 19 August 2013 - 04:21 PM
why is it always argued that workers should settle for poo pay from poo managers, but you guys never stop to think that maybe these poo managers should incentivize these poo jobs? i mean it's a-ok to pay some dumbshit ceo tens of millions for running their company into the ground, but it's fuging unheard of to suggest that we pay a living wage to workers who are willing to entertain the thought of working some poo shoveling job that management wouldn't dare do itself
Posted 19 August 2013 - 04:27 PM
Why exactly should entry level positions for adults not actually allow for a livable wage? i am honestly curious. do people think it is impossible to do this? or just a bad idea? why? is the idea that if these adults are on a barely livable wage they won't try to improve themselves?
as someone on a barely livable wage I can tell you I am working my ass off to do better, despite the fact I could sit in this position for a long-as-fug time. I don't get it.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 05:39 PM
Because those with wealth want to keep all the money even if they do nothing but hoard it in offshore banks and they have convinced some in the middle class that maybe, if they are very very good and obedient, will get a crumb or two from the table.
Wages drive share prices down, you know.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 06:02 PM
If minimum wage was increased to keep up with inflation correctly, people would have more of an incentive to leave welfare.
Oh wait that would HURT business so we can't have that. Bootstraps, people.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 06:05 PM
Posted 19 August 2013 - 06:35 PM
So is this Obummers fault or the governors?
I seem to recall everything was Obamas fault about 5 days after he took office. I can't wait to start screaming "STOP BLAMING PERDUE!!!DF#$#" at the drop of a hat.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 10:07 PM
I love how g5 has us comparing sources from a reputable think tank...and fuging ehow.com.
Posted 19 August 2013 - 11:13 PM
Posted 20 August 2013 - 06:19 AM
We cut unemployment benefits and the people surged back to work. Wait I mean unemployment numbers went up again, not down, when they were released today.
Posted 20 August 2013 - 07:25 AM
I didn't mean to say that increasing wages equates to higher inflation. (Im not sure how you got that from my post but im willing to clarify) My point was that increasing wages without first and/or simultaneously lowering inflation will lead to further inflation. More inflation hurts the dollar, making any rise in wages moot.
The idea that increasing wages will lead only to inflation and buying power will remain the same suggests that wages (including wage disparity) and profits are at a permanent ratio that can never be altered. I do not agree with that.
Posted 20 August 2013 - 08:06 AM
I'd rather have someone earning 39k as a teacher than 38k as a welfare recipient on basic principal. Also the teacher has benefits, pensions, can work during the summer and will get regular albeit small pay increases.
And may teachers make the choice consciously to teach while forgoing something more technical with a higher salary.
Posted 20 August 2013 - 08:13 AM
How so you might say? Well the inflation in America is a result of constant outsourcing of low skilled work to foreign countries to avoid paying large wages to employees. This has allowed our most common consumptions other than food, namely appliances, technology and automobiles to have their prices arbitrarily set at lower prices to allow for purchase. This may seem good, but what actually happened was that fewer jobs were available to the nations biggest consumer base forcing many to seek lower paying jobs and forcing the government to subsidized their income at ever increasing rates.
This is very debatable and you will find many articles that say these claims have been overblown.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users