and no law says that people can only have one job... growing up my mom was on her own and had her full time job and a part time job for a while.

I work at school, plus i have a summer job and do odd jobs here and there during the year because teacher pay sucks ass. I do what I have to. Lots of people do. The growing attitude i see everywhere however is "oh, well i am entitled to enough money with minimal work"

that being said, I haven't read most of this thread and am undecided on my position on food stamps... my gut feeling tells me that it's good to make sure folks don't starve, but like any social program it should be rare, temporary, and subject to being lost if abused. (the thing that makes it complicated is shitty people who do shitty things who have kids that would go hungry otherwise)

7/16/2013 4:09:18 PM

^^
http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/McDonald-s-Hourly-Pay-E432.htm

They might not be stuck at minimum wage, but cashiers max out at $10/hr. Imagine trying to live on $10 an hour in New York.

Quote :

"You get a job at McDonald's, work your ass off and show up to work on time every day, you'll get a raise and eventually a management position."

This is the same bs afripino was peddling. "work hard and you'll move up". How could this possibly be true, given the limited number of management positions? Even still, shift managers max out at $12/hr (beginning at $8). I wonder how long it takes to reach that golden $25,000 a year.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2013 4:18:15 PM

Maybe this is an elitist question but, why should we expect people to be able to live well working at McDonalds?

Are we saying then that every job in the country, no matter what it is, should produce a livable wage?

I mean typically isnt something like McDonalds viewed as like a HS job, or a summer job, or an otherwise "I need extra money" job rather than a career?

Should we view all of these very low-level, previously entry level, previously temporary jobs then as career-level material and adjust all salaries accordingly?

I was under the impression that over the past 20-30 years we were becoming some liberal-driven educational utopia and without college you were nothing? This is why every HS guidance counselor convinces every HS graduate they MUST go to college and they MUST become at least a nurse (or something).

Are we backtracking now and saying "wait, no you dont have to have an education. You'll be fine at McDonalds lets just fight to get you more money and you can stop all plans and aspirations right there at the lowest level possible."

7/16/2013 4:26:07 PM

It's true though. "Work hard" is a really general concept, though. You have to be reliable, you have to be good with people, you have to not fuck up all the time, etc. A lot of people simply can't do all of that. If you do bust your ass and show up to work on time all the time, then you've just put yourself in the top 5% of fast food workers.

Again, there are reasons why people cannot be good workers and we can talk about that, but it's impossible to believe that there are all these superstar workers stalled out at 9 or 10 dollars an hour.

Quote :

"Are we saying then that every job in the country, no matter what it is, should produce a livable wage?"

"But there's someone that is willing to do your service industry job for 4 dollars an hour..."

"So make it illegal for them to work for 4 dollars an hour!"

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 4:30:04 PM

Quote :

"They need family and a supportive community. They need two parents, not a single mother on welfare and 4 brothers and sisters. That would require that we end the policies that destroy families. That would require that we actually address and talk about the patterns of child abuse and child neglect in low-income communities. We'd have to talk about how corporal punishment rates in poor (especially black) families are FAR higher compared to the total population, and then we'd have to talk about how those practices impact brain development, crime rates, income, and virtually every other success metric in life."

Totally on board with enacting policies that encourage all of this.

In the meantime though, we can't just get rid of the check and expect improvement.

7/16/2013 5:20:21 PM

It sure feels good to stick it to your girlfriend's mother, sister, and cousins in the meantime though.

"Fuck them lol."

7/16/2013 8:28:01 PM

Quote :

"Maybe this is an elitist question but, why should we expect people to be able to live well working at McDonalds? Are we saying then that every job in the country, no matter what it is, should produce a livable wage?"

When did 'live well' and 'livable wage' become the same thing?

7/16/2013 10:07:56 PM

Quote :

"This is the same bs afripino was peddling. "work hard and you'll move up". How could this possibly be true, given the limited number of management positions? Even still, shift managers max out at $12/hr (beginning at $8). I wonder how long it takes to reach that golden $25,000 a year."

The answer is obviously robots. The workforce for fast food can, and should, be cut in half.

Our problem is cultural and macroeconomic, and it is a problem. We have too much labor. No, it's not a lack of training, because if economic forces pushed us to RoboDonalds we could train the people to work it. Labor needs to be scarce. Consumer and capital asset demand needs to be high. These are the conditions that create a developed state of affairs. The US isn't even a good example. Japan used to fit this, but they've been on a self-perpetuating contraction for 3 decades.

I blame depreciation law and monetary policy.

7/17/2013 8:51:31 AM

we have too damn many people

7/17/2013 9:23:12 AM

Quote :

"It's true though. "Work hard" is a really general concept, though. You have to be reliable, you have to be good with people, you have to not fuck up all the time, etc. A lot of people simply can't do all of that. If you do bust your ass and show up to work on time all the time, then you've just put yourself in the top 5% of fast food workers. Again, there are reasons why people cannot be good workers and we can talk about that, but it's impossible to believe that there are all these superstar workers stalled out at 9 or 10 dollars an hour."

Regardless of whether or not everyone is a "superstar worker" (which is completely relative), there are still a finite number of positions. If everyone busted ass, they wouldn't make everyone managers and start paying them $15 an hour. It would remain relative.

Anyways I'd rather jump off a bridge than be a superstar worker at McDonalds. It's impressive that they put in an effort at all.

Quote :

"The answer is obviously robots."

Yes. Redbox-style RoboDonalds machines.

[Edited on July 17, 2013 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

7/17/2013 9:28:30 AM

idiocracy did it

7/17/2013 9:42:57 AM

nah, they predicted Carl's Jr would overtake McDonalds.

7/17/2013 10:03:57 AM

only because carl's jr/hardees already has an advertising campaign that is one monster truck announcer away from the typical idiocracy advertisement

7/17/2013 10:17:29 AM

ITT we learn just how depressing it is to work in America.

In the rest of the civilized world, minimum wage is like ~$20 and you get free health care. I guess we just like fucking ourselves over.

7/17/2013 10:22:35 AM

Quote :

"we have too damn many people"

There are also:

1.5 billion cows
1 billion pigs
19 billion chickens

All these animals support humans. They're largely a luxury items. The majority of this animal protein could be replaced by plant protein, and we wouldn't even be particularly worse off. Except for lack of bacon.

The destitute portion of society doesn't have to be unemployed. They don't have to be homeless or starving. Based on a physical analysis of the Earth, you would not come to this conclusion. But if people writing the rules prioritize short term gains, and refuse any wealth redistribution, the economy may be configured to exclude large sections of society.

Long term, this is actually bad for society. Basically, we're creating a system where some privileged people like afripino are allowed to participate, and others are not. There's no microeconomic incentive to spend resources on someone who vaguely looks unemployable at the moment.

7/17/2013 10:26:14 AM

If asked what the nation with the highest class mobility was, I bet afprino would imcorrectly answer America (and it would sound like "Amurica")

7/17/2013 7:41:47 PM

So we have resorted to "I bet he would say" statements rather than contributing anything substantial to the conversation. Thanks, Obama.

7/17/2013 11:20:46 PM

Do you think class mobility in this nation is adequate? Do you know how we rank globally?

7/17/2013 11:36:43 PM

1st question:
I think there could be improvements (i.e. an emphasis on trade-schools and entrepreneurship vs. the "everyone needs to go to college" initiative, money management courses in middle and high school, among other things). So the short answer of your question is "No". Although I can't really imagine I could say anything in federal gov't is "adequate" given the current state of things.

2nd question:
*searches google*... I know now. we aren't in 1st place on this??? But we're supposed to be the best country in the world in everything!!! </sarcasm> Of course, I didn't expect us to be at the top in class mobility. Not that I really cared how the rest of the world is doing. I've lived and visited in other countries and have seen the effects of differing policies of socialized welfare. I'm more concerned about taking care of "Amurica" in the way we need to rather than mimic another country's social policies as they probably wouldn't scale up to our requirements given the resources available. Also, just because class mobility is higher, that doesn't guarantee success without personal effort.

^^^^privileged???? so whom shall I should thank for my good fortune?

[Edited on July 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ]

7/18/2013 11:13:41 AM

What nation with socialized welfare has more resources per capita than the US?

Here's a cheat sheet for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

7/18/2013 11:16:20 AM

^umm...Norway? Did I pass the quiz?

7/18/2013 11:26:19 AM

So we're not rich enough to have welfare because... Norway is richer than us?

7/18/2013 1:11:11 PM

^because of numerous reasons that would normally be common sense if you weren't trying so hard to be a condescending imbecile.

7/18/2013 2:07:35 PM

There is no common sense reason that the US should be less welfare-y than those other nations that are on par with other human development factors.

Maybe you think that unique factor is that the US is heterogeneous, whereas the welfare states are not. So, generosity goes out the window when other races are playing the game? Ridiculous.

Welfare doesn't make life worse for you. Economically, our wealth redistribution is sub-optimal, even for the people well-off. Huge number of people on the street creates a broken and malfunctioning society. There are homeless people for whom the state pays $100s of 1000s of dollars each year for the ER visits, when it would be far cheaper to pay to shack them up in a simple place. But the laws aren't made based on economics, they're made based on spite.

Quote :

"numerous reasons that would normally be common sense "

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

[Edited on July 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2013 2:17:07 PM

^^
Go ahead and explain then...why do you think this is true?

Quote :

"they probably wouldn't scale up to our requirements given the resources available"

Quote :

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

oh man i like this

[Edited on July 18, 2013 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2013 2:18:54 PM

probably because a 28% income tax wouldn't fly in this country plus the cost of living is the highest in the world?

7/18/2013 2:43:19 PM

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

7/18/2013 2:54:27 PM

^meaning....?

7/18/2013 3:01:27 PM

Quote :

"probably because a 28% income tax wouldn't fly in this country plus the cost of living is the highest in the world?"

The US does not have the highest living cost in the world.

In the link, the US isn't even on the first pace. Greece has a higher cost of living.

You were offering the fact that the US has a high cost of living as a reason that welfare won't work the same here. The fact was not only wrong, it was nowhere close to right. Not only was it no where close to right, there's no coherent reason to ever imagine it to be true to begin with.

7/18/2013 3:11:03 PM

No, I was saying that Norway has the highest cost of living in the world.

7/18/2013 3:11:56 PM