Should Americans who work full time be able to support themselves?

[DuctapeFatwa]

Should an American who works 40 hours a week be able to afford the basics: housing, food, medical care, etc?

Edit to add this: The reason that there are only two choices is because the question reflects a situation with only 2 choices: either you earn enough to purchase the basic needs of life, or you don't.

[donco6]

1. All by themselves, or as a group?

I had to have roommates for years before I finally started making some money. Would that be a yes or no answer?

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. by themselves (nt)

[donco6]

4. Then I vote no.

Sounds terrible, but I don't think we have to expect that every single person should be able to afford their own apartment, car, etc. etc. right out of the chute. I sure couldn't. I roomed with two other guys, rode the bus to work every day, walked my clothes to the laundromat once a week, didn't have a TV or stereo. But I slowly was able to acquire things.

I'm not sure I would have appreciated it if it would have all been handed to me on a platter.

God, that sounds so REPUBLICAN. :(

[The Magistrate]

6. Anyone, Sir, Who Works A Forty Hour Week

Ought to be able thereby to afford the necessities of life, for themselves and a small family. Much of what you mention are conveniences or even luxuries, but adequate diet, shelter, clothing, medical care, are necessities.

[donco6]

13. I would still say no.

When I was 23, I moved from my home to Lincoln Nebraska. I could not have afforded my own apartment on my 40/hr/week wages, so I lived with roommates. I don't think that's too much to ask of anyone else, either.

[The Magistrate]

17. What Sort Of Apartment, Sir?

Left home at sixteen, myself. Managed to find a place within a year, three small rooms. There is not much point in speaking about the interim; that was mostly wits and nerve, and it was a long time ago.

But to my view the point remains: if the employer does not exchange an adequate recompense for labor, the employer is stealing. If the employer cannot run a business without paying an adequate wage, then the employer had better look for work on his own hook.

[donco6]

30. Can't disagree with that at all, Magistrate

But let's look at an example.

Part of my job involves running 8 kitchens in school buildings. We hire kitchen workers at pretty low wages, because we have to run the program on what we get from federal reimbursement and lunch charges, which doesn't amount to much. Those lunch ladies would have a pretty good argument for accusing me of stealing - per your post. I don't think they could take what we pay them and live on their own, by themselves.

So what do I do? Raise lunch prices? For ever dime we increase the price, I lose 5% participation, which means we have a lot more kids that don't eat ANYTHING. Lay off people? I'm so tightly staffed now, it's a nightmare to staff a kitchen when I have one person sick.

Any suggestions? I really don't want to steal from people.

[idlisambar]

49. a note

Those kids that go hungry rather than pay the extra dime are extremely likely to have parents (or a single parent) making minimum wage or close to it, if they are employed at all. Raise the minimum wage and more kids can afford to eat, whether it is in your kitchens or a bag lunch.

[The Magistrate]

50. My Apologies, Sir

Rhetorical generalities tend toward the ruthless, and obscure a number of individual considerations.

But your position strikes me as hardly one of a business in a real market. You are in the position of being hired by someone else, a government, to carry out a task on a payment, with a supplement to that payment available from the largely token charge to the persons who accept the item you are hired to supply. You are not competing with anyone, at least outside whatever bidding process gets you the contract, and your clientel is largely captive, and provided by the government that hires you. If the people who hire you will not pay you what the work is worth, as seems to be the case, there is nothing you can do about it in your relations with the persons you employ.

[donco6]

51. Yes.

"Rhetorical generalities tend toward the ruthless, and obscure a number of individual considerations." Eloquently put, that.

Yes, you're right about the "pseudo"-business reality that I face. I'm forced to think that way so much, I often lose sight of reality. I'm just a subcontractor being given way too little to do the job, which then trickles the inequity downward to my staff. Federal regulations force me to use profit/loss accounting, but it's all a game - one I can't hope to win, really.

I just had a meeting with one of my schools today. I couldn't help but think of this conversation as I watched them feed 200 kids in just over 20 minutes. They're really quite amazing.

[Mairead]

55. You're right...but only for the case where you can change one thing

But we never can. So it wouldn't ever be this world + you up the wages of your 64-or-whatever-number-of-people staff, it'd be this world + everyone makes that minimum + all the side effects from millions of people having a little more money to spend.

[prodigal_green]

92. there's a big difference

Between a single person sharing an apartment and a two- or three- income family not able to adequately house, warm and feed their family.

2 singles as roommates, pretty standard

2 families sharing a single home, not acceptable.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Handed on a platter? stereo? I don't think you understand the question

I am not talking about anything being handed on a platter.

I am asking about whether people who WORK 40 hours a week should be able to afford the BASICS, like a roof, food, bus fare if there's a bus. Not stereos.

[donco6]

16. Maybe I'm not making my point clear.

I'm all for good wages. But I do think that people need to take some responsibility for making ends meet. If it's sharing an apartment with others, then that's what you do.

I knew I couldn't have afforded my bus fare if I'd lived alone. I needed the fare to get to work. I solved my problem by finding roommates. It wasn't forever, and it was actually kinda fun. But I don't think I "deserved" anything in particular.

I just honestly don't think it's an entitlement to expect to have even your basic needs met without some effort on your part - effort on TOP of working a 40-hour week. If it's trundling your dirty laundry 12 blocks to the laundromat because you can't afford a car, you do it. Just the way it is.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. No, I am not being clear. I am not talking about washing machines

or stereos. I am not saying should people be poor.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, if people want to share an apartment and have a little more, fine.

But my point, my question is, should you be able to support yourself, not have luxuries, nor an easy life, but survive, if you work 40 hrs a week? Maybe you have to wash your clothes in the sink, or like you did, walk to the laundromat, but should you be able to afford a roof over your head, food to eat, medical treatment when you're sick. The basics. Not steros or appliances or movies on the weekend or a night of beer drinking, just the basics.

Remember that not everyone is a young person getting experience and learning about responsibility.

Some people will make minimum wage all their lives, and they don't necessarily have some cool good friends that they can move in with.

[donco6]

31. Expressed that way, I absolutely agree.

Sorry for being so dull-witted this evening. It's been a long day.

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. LOL no problem, I should have put a lot more in the poll text

I was being a little dull-witted myself, I think we have gotten so used to the idea of people NOT being able to support themselves even if they work full time that we tend to assume "help" of some kind, from roomates, parents, the government - so I think you were not dull-witted at all, just illustrating the point with exceptional clarity!

:)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

53. all that talk of personal responsibility...

If you expect solidarity, you better give it. Shockingly enough I'm agreeing with TheMagistrate here - but if you can't afford to support yourself and your family with a full time job - something is wrong with society and it needs reform.

"I just honestly don't think it's an entitlement to expect to have even your basic needs met without some effort on your part - effort on TOP of working a 40-hour week. If it's trundling your dirty laundry 12 blocks to the laundromat because you can't afford a car, you do it. Just the way it is."

Spoken like a true socially liberal, "economic conservative". No thanks. I'm working for a future where no one is making a decision between "heat or eats".

[loftycity]

36. He doesn't get it -- .....now we know we are really in trouble...

[loftycity]

37. He doesn't get it....now we know were in trouble...confirmation

[formernaderite]

74. Depends on the job, I don't think you can generalize....

...my son who can be pretty lazy...worked a summer retail job last year averageing more than 40 hours. But he did very little...the store he worked in was NEVER busy...he basically babysat the cash register. My brother in law works full time as a security guard...he's a born again whack-job and tries to work nights only, so he can read the bible on the job. He has said no to promotions, because he doesn't want any distractions(responsiblity), he has always had to have a roomate.
In theory I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you can generalize based on a 40 hour week, and entry level work.

[DuctapeFatwa]

77. My generalization is: is a day's labor worth a day's survival?

Not whether some jobs are easy and others hard, but that simple question, should a day's labor be worth, at a minimum, the price of a day's survival?

Either in order to keep the US a capitalist economy as opposed to a feudalist one, or because it is an inalienable human right that he who works should eat.

[formernaderite]

85. Depends on your definition of survival...

I've chosen over the last five years to live a minimalist existence, it allows me to work at jobs I want to do. My whack-job brother in-law lives frugally on a very low paying salary, cheap car and with a roomate. Obviously we all can eat.
I work as a contractor and come in contact with many guys without work permits, essentially "illegals". Honestly, I am very impressed with how they manage to support themselves and families in foreign lands on minimum wage. Generally a bunch of guys in an apartment...kind of like college.[br}Are you asking whether one can support a family on minimum wage/one salary? Probably not. Can one support a single human on a minimum wage, eat and have shelter...absolutely.

[DuctapeFatwa]

88. Support oneself, again I should have specified "without help"

in the poll's text.

Without help from parents, roomates or government programs.

That means that if you want to get a roomate and have a little extra, that should be your choice, but I am asking if those who work a full time job should be able to support THEMSELVES.

[The Magistrate]

3. Of Course, Mr. Fatwa

It is scandalous that it is not the case, as a matter of routine, already. Fixing it will be tricky. Probably the best course would be a sizeable rise in the minimum wage, and a complete revamping of the N.L.R.B., to put power behind union organizing. One thing that needs to be realized is that various government support payments amount to nothing more than subsidies for greedy business owners, who are to some degree relieved of the necessity to pay a fair price for labor through such measures. This makes these "entrepeneurs" the worst sort of subsidy guzzling free-loaders. It is a utopian suggestion, but perhaps some tax aimed directly to confiscate profits resulting from low wages could have a salutory effect....

"The laboring people are necessarily the most numerous portion of society, and it is nonsense to claim that what benefits the most numerous portion can be injurious to the whole."

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. There is a right good distance between Utopia and ensuring that the

price of a day's labor does not fall below the price of a day's survival.

I am sure you are aware that this is NOT a good thing for any nation's economy, unless that nation is a feudal state, in which serfs labor with the incentive of not being slain, rather than that of earning their daily bread.

[snoochie]

11. This is arguably the best post I have ever read on this site or anywhere.

Ever.

[The Magistrate]

12. Indeed, My Friend

The thing you speak of represents a tremendous danger to any stable society, and this has been known a long time. Millenia have passed since the Sage wrote: "Having too little to live on, the people know better than to value life too much."

My reference was simply to indicate that the specific tax measure proposed could have no chance of passing the Legislature as it exists, and therefore, cannot be considered really a practical proposal.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. And that statement, which I do not dispute, is but one indication of

the danger-meter's having hurled itself across the gauge, and died.

[The Magistrate]

20. We Are In Decided Agreement, My Friend

That the Republic is in danger....

[union_maid]

8. they should

I don't think that anyone's saying that the first job out of school should net you a full blown middle class lifestyle with no help. The problem is that it's getting harder and harder to make it at all. There used to be a social contract that said if you worked hard, didn't suffer too much misfortune and kept at it, you'd have a decent life. That was the American dream, which is now closer to a nightmare for a lot of people. When I was a kid, one blue collar income could support a large family. Now, very often two incomes coming from comparable jobs won't even support a tiny family. Most people who live in emergency housing in my area have jobs. Some are two parent families with two jobs.

[asthmaticeog]

32. No doubt.

I currently make, in non-adjusted dollars, the same salary my father did in 1973. He bought a nice ranch house in a suburb with good schools, had two cars, my toddler mouth to feed and my mom was a stay-at-home housewife. And he was an immigrant who spoke broken English and still hadn't yet finished his college degree. That, again, is in 1973 dollars.

On the same number of 2004 dollars, I rent a house in a shaky neighborhood, with my old college roommate splitting the rent & bills with me, I can barely afford the payments on my (used) car, and whenever something goes wrong with said car, or worse, with my health, I can kiss my paltry savings goodbye, in effect having to start saving all over again, so a down-payment on a house always seems years away. I'm a degreed professional in my mid-'30s with a good NAFTA-proof job. And I'm no spendthrift - I can't be. A lot of it has to do, I think, with college debt - I started college shortly after student aid went from being primarily grant-based to almost entirely loan-based.

And in the housing projects a few blocks away from me, a whole hell of a lot of the tenants there have full-time jobs. Two of 'em, even. I fully realize that even as pressed as I am, I'm damn lucky compared to them. But even on what little those neighbors make, in 1973 dollars they probably would have been OK.

If our nation's economic thinking doesn't swing back around to at least some consideration of the demand-side, and SOON, we're flat out fucked.

[ldoolin]

9. Yes, absolutely

And some now cannot, which is why raising the minimum wage, back to 1960s levels adjusted for inflation, and with higher living wage laws in places with high living expenses, needs to be a top priority.

[DieboldMustDie]

19. The 1968 minimum wage...

of $1.60 per hour, adjusted for inflation, (see http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) would be $8.51 per hour today. The current level of $5.15 represents nearly a 40% decline.

[ldoolin]

22. Thanks

For that post.

:yourock:

Most Americans are unaware at just how much wages have declined since peaking in 1968.

There was another thread asking what Kerry could do to excite voters on the left, while also winning over voters in the center. This is that issue. Raise the federal minimum wage to $8.50 an hour, and automatically adjust it each year for inflation to keep it at that level. It's a can't-lose issue. How about it, Kerry?

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. And could you support yourself on $8.51 an hour today?

Remember to deduct social security.

[democratreformed]

28. I can answer this one.

On 40 hours, the answer is No. That's what my son-in-law makes. Still, I have to pay the car insurance, etc. My daughter's in college but works part-time.

I also have to help her out with clothing, eyewear, etc. And if the car breaks down - forget it - we help with that too.

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. Thanks, I should have specified that - support oneself without help

without help from parents, from roomates, from food stamps or other government subsidies.

[Codeblue]

39. You can support

yourself on $8.50 an hour. My mom hasn't made more than $9.00 an hour since I've been old enough to care about living conditions and wages, and though we were barely above the poverty line and always had to worry about the landlord raising the rent in our apartment, and insurance was sometimes a problem if we both wanted to be included on a plan, we got by just fine.

She was lucky enough to have mostly worked for companies providing health and dental insurance coverage for both of us and we never had a problm getting enough food, beverages or much else. Transportation was never a problem either. I worked to help support myself, not to help my mom, and we all did just fine. $8.50 an hour is a perfectly reasonable minimum wage.

[DuctapeFatwa]

42. I'm a little confused whether you mean she earns that today, or did in the

past.

[Codeblue]

83. She makes that now

She still makes about $9.00 an hour and we live in Douglas County, Colorado, one of the richest counties and certainly the richest in the state. Yet we still get by.

[DuctapeFatwa]

89. That's great. Rents in your area must be unusually low for such a

wealthy county. That is the kind of thing that a living wage determination should take into consideration: the range of rent prices in the area, as well as the cost of groceries, water if applicable, the public transportation situation, one size does not fit all! :)

[IrateCitizen]

58. It all depends on where you live

If you live in Westchester County, NY (like my wife and I do), breaking the six-digit threshold in income puts you solidly among the middle to upper-middle class.

Where I live, the median cost of a home is $571,000 -- and rent for a 1-bedroom apartment is commonly in excess of $1100 per month. Plus, outside of the trains running into the city, the public transportation sucks, so you'd better have a car if you want to reasonably get to and from work.

Where I live, $8.50/hour is a pittance. Attempts at getting a living wage passed have been in the $11.00/hr range -- and even that would be a serious stretch for a family.

[DuctapeFatwa]

63. You're right, see 44 and 46. Climate matters, too

If you're in Florida, you can argue that heat isn't a basic, but for people in Montana, it is.

Same for air conditioning. If you live in an area and in housing where conditions regularly get to a point that can impede health, then air conditioning is a basic.

If that rarely happens, it's not. And just to re-emphasize, I'm not talking about hot and stuffy or uncomfortable and hard to get to sleep. I mean danger of heat exhaustion/stroke.

Same with heat. A few chilly nights a year during which you have to sleep under every piece of cloth you own is not the same as a seasonal period of temperatures that can cause hypothermia.

[democratreformed]

93. I would like to reexamine my original answer to this question

$8.50 per hour for 40 hours equals $340 per week gross.
Social Security is $26.01 leaving $313.99 per week before taxes.
Based on single with 0 dependents, my payroll program lists $35.51 for federal withholding and $9.59 for (Arkansas) state withholding.
That leaves $268.89 bring home pay assuming no insurance is held out of a check.

Multiply that by 4 (I know some months have five weeks, but most don't and, when I was living paycheck to paycheck, I felt like I got a bonus in those months and, most months, you have to pay your bills with only four paychecks). That's $1075.56 per month.

Now, let's look at expenses. Once again, I'll use my daughter and son-in-laws bills for reference but assume he is single

Rent - $250.00
Electricity - $100.00
Water - $25.00
Car payment - $321.00
Gasoline - $80.00
Car insurance - $121.00
Food - $160.00
Clothing - $50.00

Notes:
1. I am considering a vehicle a necessity. We are in rural Arkansas and you must have one to be able to get somewhere and make that $8.50 per hour.
2. I made up the food and clothing figures. Who knows what's a good figure?
3. The total above is $1107.00, leaving this person $32 in the hole for the month.
4. This person has no money for health insurance or health care such as doctor's visits, medicine (even otc medicine).
5. Would you call this being able to provide for the basic necessities of life?
6. In the event that this person had a family, the figures would be even higher.

On edit: how do rent and electricity figures above compare in different areas of the country?

[DuctapeFatwa]

95. In urban areas, where many poor live, rents 3 or 4 times that are not rare

for a basic shelter 1 bedroom or studio apartment without amenities such as swimming pools, tennis courts or laundry facilities.


$250 for rent would not be realistic in most cities, and improbable in many rural ones.

Clothing needs would vary according to occupation and location. I am considering the purchase of second-hand clothing as survival, so $50 might be realistic for someone who walks a lot, is on their feet all day and wears out their second hand shoes pretty fast.

If the job requires "professional" dress, or requires that the employee pay a fee for the purchase, use or cleaning of uniforms, $50 might not be enough.

For someone who drives to work, is seated for most of the day and can wear what they like, $50 a month would go beyond survival.

I would guess that in most places, it would be possible to buy a used, "reliable transportation" car for less than $321 a month.

For people living somewhere like New York, a car would not be necessary at all.

Regardless of variations, the person would not be able to purchase medical treatment.

It is also worth noting that the hourly wage used in this example is well above the federal minimum.

[democratreformed]

98. Many things to think about

I made up the car payment too. I don't have a realistic impression of how much a payment would be on a good used car in the lower caliber today. Both my vehicle and my husbands were purchased used. My payment is $463.00 and his is $656.00 (rounded off the cents). Both were low mileage and his is a work truck (F250). I realize their rent is on the low end, but, trust me, it is too high for the place they live in. And, I realize that rent varies greatly as does other things.

I chose the $8.50 b/c that's what you asked about above.

Oh, and you're right about the clothing thing as well. Although, that seems to be harder these days as well. I used to buy my hubby a lot of jeans at yard sales for a dollar or two. (Construction work - they ruin them anyway - no need for good ones). Today, they're harder to find than they used to be. But, still, the ones at the dollar stores can usually be found for around $10 a pair and they are pretty good.

Basically, I just did this to reinforce my idea that it is, indeed, very hard to survive on $8.50 per hour.

[DuctapeFatwa]

99. From your figures, & reasonable extrapolation, it is clearly not possible

without help of some kind, whether it be from parents or other better-heeled family members, roomates, or government programs.

I included the part about $8.50 being above the current minimum just to emphasize to readers how far below the price of survival society has allowed the value of a day's labor to fall.

[plurality]

112. here in DC a 1 bedroom is $1,000+

Of course that's for northwest, in south east you can get a one bedroom for around $500. But that will be ending once Williams finishes his turn the poor into mailboxes plan, then rent will probably be uniformly unafordable for anyone making less than $25k a year.

I used to live in Dallas and it was much better there, at least for the suburbs. A 1 bedroom could be had for $350-500, 2 bedroom $500-900, and 3 bedroom $800-1,200.

[Darranar]

10. Yes, certainly.

[NC_Nurse]

14. You shouldn't even have to ask!

But sadly, you do. There are lots of folks around here scraping by on 2 salaries....

[Doctor_J]

15. It's called Living Wage

and it should be the law.

[no name no slogan]

21. I can't believe

That anybody who calls themselves a "Democrat" could even vote AGAINST this proposal.

THIS VERY ISSUE has been part of our party's platform since the New Deal: a livable wage for every working person in the country.

Does livable mean ostentatious, or even middle-class? NO. It means that if you are willing and able to work full-time, then you should be paid enough to afford housing, food, and expenses.

It boggles the mind to even see so-called "Democrats" voting against such a thing. I guess this party really has forgotten what made it so great.

:eyes:

[democratreformed]

25. Here's a serious question

I am a very poor history student.

When did the U.S. first move to the point where each person (or family, even) was expected to have his or her own place? Seriously, remember when grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, older brothers and sisters, and little ones all lived together. I know I didn't grow up that way. So, when did it change?

Also, what about those people who work 70+ hours a week. My husband has rarely worked only 40 hours. When he did, we had a hard time - it was like being on unemployment. Most of the the time, he worked at least 60 and sometimes 80+. THEN, we could live comfortably.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. The transition from agriculture to industry

did see a decline in extended families.

And as I said to the other person, I'm not talking about living comfortably, I'm talking about staying in housing and having enough food to eat and getting medical treatment when you need it, not luxuries or comfort or fun or extras - just the basics.

[democratreformed]

33. I understood your point and I answered yes in your poll but

this conversation is interesting and thought-provoking. There seems to be more of this type of post latetly and I am enjoying them immensely.

You see, the wage issue is something that I am on both sides of. I am both an employee and an employer. My husband does contracting work for the grain, feed, and seed industry. The pay is one of my pet peeves. That son-in-law up there in my other post - he works for us. In the summer, he actually does fairly well b/c they work LONG hours. In the winter (which gets VERY long), they have a really hard time.

We are a baby company - in more ways than one. This will be our third year in business. Our sales are a little over $200,000 per year. In the summer, we work from four to eight guys. In the winter, we work NONE for the majority of the time. I do the quotations, the payroll and bookkeeping, and help out on the job at times. I don't get paid. At the same time, I work for another contractor doing estimating, drafting, and purchasing.

I would love to pay my guys more. I do provide their insurance (for the full time ones). As it is, we scrape by and manage to pay the bills we accumulated when we were both working and making 120grand a year combined. Our dream of being able to get the equipment we need to work with instead of having to rent (knocks you out of a lot of jobs) or borrow seems like it will never happen. During the long, slow winter, when no money is coming in, the insurance (liability and WC) payments and truck payments, etc. continue. We usually start out the new year's work with very little or no money. I just borrowed $10,000 for this year b/c we were down to basically nothing.

The problem in my business is a hard one. The customer's balk at paying decent hourly rates. What they pay is less than what they pay mechanics to work on their car or the plumber to fix their plumbing. Competition prevents us from charging more and staying in business.
Another one of my dreams, though, is to slowly figure out how to change that. We have guys who actually risk their lives working 150' in the air to repair something that makes these people money. But, yet, they are unwilling to provide enough pay for it to enable the workers to make a good living. It is my dream to succeed in changing that. Who knows? Maybe I will.

[DuctapeFatwa]

38. Your story illustrates that the problem is systemic

Which makes it even worse in terms of rankmycrisis points.

You can see here on what is supposedly the bleeding edge of the radical left (yet another rankmycrisis indicator on its own merit)
in this thread and in others that I have seen, that there are people who sincerely are confused about the idea of work and pay, for one thing. I am not calling out the poster in this thread, but I can tell you that I have sprained my fingers on more than one occasion on this board explaining that pay received for labor performed is NOT a gift, nor a privilege, nor a handout, a bonus, or an act of kindness, any more than the 99 cents you pay Burger King for your whopper is any of those things.

Imagine then, the "mainstream," well you don't have to, as you indicate, your clients do not believe that either you nor your employees should have a living wage.

The country has worked itself into a situation where if it wishes to preserve capitalism, it will have to make some structural, fundamental, systemic, system-wide, radical and oh yes, revolutionary changes.

I think of it like a 4 year old and his supper.

If your people are housed, fed and doctored, you can have a big slice of capitalism with free market on top for dessert!

[democratreformed]

52. Call me stupid

but I didn't really understand your post. About the only part I did understand is that there needs to be change. I agree with that.

[blondeatlast]

114. I've thought the same for many years.

If your people are housed, fed and doctored, you can have a big slice of capitalism with free market on top for dessert!

I call myself a "social capitalist;" make sure honest labor is rewarded by a slightly (and I do mean slightly) better than living wage, let the govrnment handle healthcare, and then make yourself as rich as you ethically can.

[amazona]

56. when people moved to the Americas, I suppose

In feudal Europe and perhaps in Asia and Africa even today you have these households with large extended families. In the Americas we have an immigrant culture, and people came over by onesies and twosies and would send back to other family members if and when they could afford them. I don't think many of us had extended family members in one household in the Americas. On my dad's side, in Appalachia, while the extended family did live all on one mountain, they certainly all had their own homesteads. And, after world war ii, with the GI Bill, people could go to school and actually move off the mountain. But, even before that, every nuclear family unit had its own house, cabin, or trailor. And that was the great depression! The Americas is not a culture of huge extended families living in one household, it just isn't. (my humble interpretation of history only, granted) My dad had 8 brothers and sisters, and certainly each of them got their own spouse and their own house whether they got off the mountain or not.

[Mairead]

57. "When did extended-family housing stop being the norm?"

It started declining with the automobile becoming available to many. Younger people no longer needed to live with dad and mum because they no longer needed to work where dad (and perhaps mum) worked. They could move out to the suburbs 'for the children' and drive in, instead.

[OKNancy]

62. I also think the GI Bill after WWII

encouraged families to buy a single family residence.

[dweller]

26. Here's one way

"Putting decent wages in the hands of those who need the
money is a far surer way to boost an economy than giving
tax breaks to those with more money than they know what
to do with. And the living wage movement of the past
decade has added more evidence to the already solid
documentation that adjusting the minimum wage upward
along with inflation does not cause unemployment.

"I will make it a top priority to restore the value of the
federal minimum wage, bringing it up to at least its 1968
level and indexing it to automatically keep pace with the
cost of living. This will allow some workers to quit their
second or third jobs and spend more time with their
families.

read more here


timely poll DTF, i vote yes.
dp

[asthmaticeog]

34. Your link's munged.

I wanna read more! Could you repost that link in working order?

[dweller]

41. i'm sorry

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/minimum_wage.php

i munged it myself...

mung,mung,mung.
dp

[asthmaticeog]

45. Thanks!

n/t

[AbbeyRoad]

35. Yes they should be able to afford the basics

I believe 100% that if someone works a full forty hour week that they should be able to afford the basics of food, medical care, and shelter with electricity and heat.

It is a disgrace that the US is the wealthiest country in the world and this isn't already true for all. A person who puts in a tough 40+ hour week shouldn't have to constantly juggle rent, electricity, food and their health.

For the working poor, survival is a constant struggle. Some bills have to be paid later so that others can be paid on time, and, therefore, the person's credit is affected. Now employers are using credit ratings in the hiring process.

[Northwind]

40. The problem

The problem with a federally mandated flat minimum wage is that it does not take into account the vast difference in cost of living around the country.

I live in Dallas, and I actually could survive on $8.50 an hour if I had to (I have done so on less). I could get a small apartment, have electricity, maintain a used car, maybe even have cable and internet access. But Dallas has an incredibly low cost of living for a city of its size and prosperity. My girlfriend moved here from Long Island. She nearly lost her mind when she found out what the rent was at my place. I have a third floor (which here is the top floor) apartment with 970 sq ft, vaulted ceilings, one bedroom and an office (which could be a second bedroom if necessary) and a balcony overlooking a park with a creek running through it. Rent? $645.00 a month, and it has not gone up in 3 years. But where she is from? The same apartment, if you could something like it at all, would be at the very least $2000 a month! That alone is more than you would take home a month at $8.50 an hour (after taxes, considering New York has state income tax and Texas does not). You flatly could not survive on your own for that amount there.

So should the minimum wage not be adjusted for cost of living in a given area?

[DuctapeFatwa]

44. I agree. One size will not fit all. Someone living in San Francisco

would need a lot more for rent alone than someone living in Biloxi.

A person living in New York would be able to survive just fine without a car, but Los Angeles is another story.

To be fair to both workers and employers, the minimum wage should be tied to what it costs to purchase the basics in the community where the employee lives. I would say where the wage is paid, but increasingly, low income people live far from their place of work, which is a whole nother show.

But it would be unfair to employers to say, well, the coffee shop is in the ritzy mall, and to live in this hood would require a minimum of $3000 a month.

On the other hand, there need to be safeguards to keep employers from hiring only people who live in the most distant, run-down places imaginable.

Common sense. The goal is very simple, and is stated in the original post. If you work 8 hours you should be able to support yourself, and while that might mean a bus ride across town, it should not mean that all the poor people in New York and LA should move to Biloxi!

They can't afford to move anywhere, for one thing :)

[Darranar]

46. A proposal...

haven't thought on this extensively, which is of course a bad thing, nor am I sure that I agree with it, but I'll post it here nevertheless to see what people think...

Why not make the minimum wage equal to a living wage in the location of the workplace, then let the government pay for the difference if a living wage is higher in the home of the worker? If it is lower, the difference can go to the fund to pay for this.

It may provide a motivation for businesses to move to less affluent areas, where ordinarily they wouldn't go because of low prices. That may increase the economic welfare of such areas.

This would also prevent the employment of only people from run-down areas.

[DuctapeFatwa]

47. That's a great idea!

And if it were spun as corporate welfare, the imperialists just might vote for it ;)

[quaker bill]

67. It can and it has been

Vermont, for example raised it's minimum wage, I think a guy named Howard Dean had something to do with it.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm...

He was that "conservative" angry guy running for President, right?

[LWolf]

43. Absolutely.

I support a living wage for anyone who works a full week. And I do mean a maximum of 40 hours.

I make a decent salary. Enough to live on. No luxury. But I work a good 50 - 60 hours a week.

[no name no slogan]

54. Yeah, I USED to

until I got laid off in January. But again I was working at least 50 hours a week to do so.

We need to "adjust" just what makes "full time" work, too. Americans work more hours than any other industrialized country. Our average work week is 45 hours. In France it's more like 35. We get two weeks vacation on average. In Europe, most people get at least four, if not eight.

Our productivity may be high, but it comes with a cost. Americans are more overworked and in debt than ever before. This needs to be addressed too, IMHO.

[Forkboy]

59. What are you,some kind of commie?!

;-)

[Columbia]

60. Some questions

What do you guys consider a 'Living Wage'?

Should it vary depending on locale?

How much should a 'Living Wage' cover?
Small apt for a family of four?

Does it consider one income or two?

How do you calculate how much basic necessities truly costs?

Let's say basic level for a person is $20k/yr and you have two people. One person graduated from HS and one did not. The person who did got a job doing data entry for $10/hr while the one who didn't got a job at McDonalds for $6/hr. Would the 'Living Wage' subsidize the non-diploma holder's wages up to the one who graduated?

[democratreformed]

61. I wondered about consideration for education as well.

Ya know what? I went to college. Got out and started teaching. I waited many years to make more than my hubby who didn't finish high school. Looking at annual wages, it NEVER happened.

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. No, this question is not about education, it's entirely independent of it

I'm not asking whether some jobs should pay more or less relative to education.

I'm asking very simply, if a person who works a 40 hour week should be able to support themselves, provide the basics to sustain life and health, without help from parents, roomates or the government.

[democratreformed]

68. Hey, did you notice that I didn't quite understand your reply

to me up there? Maybe you were afraid to look at it b/c the title says "Call me stupid", but I really feel that way b/c I really missed most of your meaning.

[DuctapeFatwa]

71. You are not stupid at all. I will try to explain it better

One of the fundamentals of capitalism is that a worker has an incentive to work harder and make more money for management because if the company makes more money, they will pay the worker more money, and he will be able to either save it to start his own business, learn a new skill, or do something else to improve his standard of living and that of his children.

At some point in the past, when doesn't matter as much as that it happened, that went away, and the worker fell back on the bottom rung of that principle: he was no longer working in hopes of gaining a benefit, but of earning his keep, making a living, making enough to get back to work the next day.

Now, that rung has broken.

The minimum value of a day's labor has now fallen below the minimum value of a day's survival.

That is not capitalism, that is feudalism.

[democratreformed]

73. Thanks for the explanation

Yes, I understand now. And you are indeed, correct.

I have been through many things in the past 4 1/2 years beginning with the sudden unexpected death of my mother. Before that, I somehow (along with the rest of my family) managed to live in my own little dream world. We really did have a fairy-tale type life. No, we weren't rich but we were doing well enough to have many of the things we wanted. We were "moving up". I had been taught all my life to work hard to get ahead. My dad's motto was "Work hard and do the right thing and you can have anything you want." Our extended family life was the best in the world to me. We were always together - cooking on the grill, going flea-marketing or just running around, and living, eating a breathing work the whole time. If we weren't working, we were talking about working. And it felt RIGHT. It seemed to be working.

Then, all of a sudden, it all came crashing down. In case you haven't guessed, we all worked for the family business that my dad worked and built. My mother's death caused the most crap I have ever experienced in my life. Not only was the grief excruciating, but the family just fell apart. The business fell apart (or was torn apart, I guess some would say). Oh, it's still there. That's where I went back to work. But, I see it dying every single day. I no longer have the heart and sould to throw myself into it like I used to. No one else seems to either.

When we were in the early stages, we had a consultant come in. We had a la-ti-da meeting where we outlined our values. One of our top values that everyone agreed on was PEOPLE. Then, the consultant went on to make MONEY (for the company, of course) the focus of every single thing he did. I would get so aggravated. I would say I thought we were supposed to value PEOPLE. How do these policies value PEOPLE? That has haunted me ever since. I was forced to wake up and realize that most busiesses do not really value people. I guess that's why most business owners are Republican (or that's what I've heard).

Sorry for this long-winded post. It's just explanation of how I have arrived at constantly trying to reconcile being an employer with being a person who cares about PEOPLE. Does that make sense? It's also how I know that what you say is indeed true. Working hard is no longer a guarantee of getting ahead.

[DuctapeFatwa]

75. Nor is it any longer a guarantee of being able to stay housed and fed

Like post 33, your story illustrates that the problem is systemic.

As an employer, you know that it is in your best interests if your employees work hard and do good work, and know that as you succeed, they will benefit.

It is NOT in your best interests to have employees who are worrying, on time YOU are paying for, if they will be able to pay the rent this month, if they will be able to buy medicine, food, keep the lights on.

And as your consultant taught you, it's a vicious cycle, a catch-22. If you pay your employees a living wage, you have to struggle to stay in business, instead of selling out to a larger company and going to work for someone else, who may not pay YOU a living wage.

If you do not pay them a living wage, you get poor quality work, high turnover and the increased costs associated with that which hit you a lot harder than they do McDonalds, for instance. And so there you are, struggling to stay in business, instead of selling out etc.

Another fundamental principle of capitalism is competition.

The idea of the free market depends on consumer choice.

If you want to buy bread, you should have the choice of buying a loaf baked in the home of a neighbor and peddled in a basket, or going to your favorite family owned bakery downtown, or buying a massed produced loaf made by a conglomerate from a supermarket.

When the lady with the basket is prohibited from peddling, charged fees that are more than she could possibly hope to make back in a year of bread-baking, and the family-owned bakeries are reduced to hiring people as bakers who have neither interest nor incentive to bake good bread, occupied as they are with the ubiquitous landlord and watching the clock so as not to miss the bus to their second job in their endless and hopeless quest to appease said landlord, since you are unable to pay them a living wage without charging ten times what the supermarket charges, the center cannot hold, and proprietor and disinterested baker alike must submit to the will of the conglomerate, the feudal lord, or perish.

[democratreformed]

78. Your bread story was a good one.

So, what are your suggestions on what needs to be done to fix the problems? Like I said, it is my dream to be able to build my and my husband's tiny little business to be a place just like you talked about. I want to pay my guys a good wage. I want to provide them with health insurance (like I said, I do that now but it is decidedly inferior but affordable). I want them to be proud of what they do and proud of what they get from it. At the same time, of course, I want to be able to provide for my own family, make my business grow, and provide for our futures.

One of the things I have suggested at my dad's business is employee ownership. A few years ago, when I mentioned this, the resounding reply was "Hell no!" Saturday, my brother and I were discussing the major problems they still have and he brought up the issue. I still think it is a good idea.

[DuctapeFatwa]

82. To elaborate a little more on post 80

the idea of redistribution of wealth is generally associated with communism and socialism, but it is also a necessary element restoring the economy to capitalism.

As the world's resources consolidate themselves into a shrinking number of hands, so do your kids' chances of living on the street, if they're lucky, with a piece of cardbord to prop up against a wall and stick their head under when it rains, and your grandchildren's chances of enjoying such a lifestyle are virtually guaranteed.

The gap between rich and poor has increased over 70% in the last few years, according to the government's own figures, and the widening of that gap continues apace.

One popular example that is occasionally mentioned in the media are CEO salaries, relative to those of their employees.

The middle class is being phased out, and one does not have to look far to see what kind of society that produces, as both Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa are a little farther ahead on the road; if you wish to look into the future and see the world through your granddaughter's eyes, and I am being optimistic, do a google for recent events in Uganda.

[MidwestMomma]

87. Sadly, nowadays, you are supposed to be grateful you still have a job

I hate what has been done to the American worker. I hate that companies decided at some point that 'hey, we can make them work harder to make us more money and keep all the money for ourselves'. And then if the current workers aren't making enough money, they just lay some workers off which not only increases the bottom line but also increases the productivity of the remaining workers who will work twice as hard because they're afraid they'll get laid off next.

And beyond a living wage, something needs to be done about annual increases in salaries. Is it just me or does it seem obscene for companies to expect their employees to be happy to get a 4 percent increase, if any, when their profits are up way more than that? And of course, the CEO's and stockholders aren't limited to that kind of pay out.

Oh and what the hell ever happened to cost of living increases? Anybody here remember those? That's how workers use to stay ahead of the game but those have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Thanks for listening. As you can tell, I have a lot of bitterness about the lack of support that companies show their employees and yes, I feel more like a serf than an employee these days.

Great thread. Many interesting ideas. Thanks.

[DuctapeFatwa]

90. You have very succinctly explained the difference between capitalism and

feudalism.

Capitalism is being grateful that your hard work has allowed you to accumulate capital.

Gratitude for being allowed to work whether that work is enough to earn your daily bread or not is more appropriate to feudalism.

Or slavery.

[DuctapeFatwa]

64. Good questions. Here are answers as they relate to my question

What do you guys consider a 'Living Wage'?

Whatever it takes to permit someone working full time to purchase the basics needed for survival.

Should it vary depending on locale?

Yes, because what it takes to buy the basics in Opp, Alabama and what it takes in Silicon Valley are very different.


How much should a 'Living Wage' cover?
Small apt for a family of four?

I am talking about one person, housing, food, medical treatment when needed, adequate utilities for the purposes of health and hygiene. EXample: a shower or bathtub is a basic. A fancy shower head or jacuzzi is not. A second-hand coat is a basic. New expensive designer clothing is not. Soap is a basic. Bath oil beads are not.

The Magistrate is more generous than I am on the family thing. I am asking about just one person. I am not being anti-family, I am trying to illustrate how far we have come from the fundamental principle that anyone who works full time should be able to support themselves from so doing.

Does it consider one income or two?

One.

How do you calculate how much basic necessities truly costs?

By computing the costs of them in the location. In post 46, Darranar has a good idea about dealing with discrepancies in costs in the workplace location versus costs in the employee's home area.

[Columbia]

84. Thanks for the response

I'm just wondering how this would be paid out though.

Would this be some kind regional living wage mandate that companies would have to pay? Or would .gov subsidize income, and leave the companies to pay the regular minimum wage?

[quaker bill]

66. Yes.

It is always good to remember when considering this that 50 percent of the population has a less than average IQ. This is not a judgement on my part, it is precisely what the term average means. So the notion that we are going educate our way out of this problem is a non-starter.

We will never succeed in this regard on the notion that we can train and innovate to become a "brains" economy while the third world provides the labor. Many Americans will only ever be well suited to labor type jobs and we will need an economy where these folks are well enough paid to live a descent life. Nothing less than this will do.

[RichardRay]

69. Nope, because your idea of 'supporting'

and mine are way out of alignment.

For MANY years I worked far more than a 40 hour week and lived in a tree without ANY of the amenities people list as basic. No heat, no running water, no sanitation. If it rained I probably got wet. If I got sick I rolled up in a blanket until I got well. If I broke something I splinted it and waited for it to mend. I did it because of the lifestyle I was able to live on that basis. So, I considered myself quite adequately compensated.

So, I was working full time, and I was happy, but it doesn't look like I was 'supporting' myself by the standards listed here.

Before you discount my experience note that I can find lots of people living now exactly as I did then, and for exactly the same reasons. It's a minority, but it's real.

(edited for spelling)

[DuctapeFatwa]

70. Your experiences should be very helpful to those currently being priced

out of the housing market. If I were a feudalism advocate, I would hire you as a motivational speaker at exit meetings of employees being let go, as well as orientation sessions for the previously affluent to help them transition to their new jobs in the dynamic and unoutsourceable food service industy.

Of course, you would be generously compensated with the use of a premium quality tree.

You should also consider offering your services as a consultant to a couple of Democratic candidates who are fine-tuning their health care plans.

[RichardRay]

96. If you don't want to consider that 'supported' then don't

and I wouldn't want anyone else to if they didn't feel it did the job. Be that as it may, _I_ felt just fine about it. Even now (when I have a somewhat more conventional standard of living) I sometimes look back on that existence and wish I could go back there.

So, my point is just that you need to be a bit more careful with generalizing on just what it takes to have people feel that their labor is adequately compensated.

[DuctapeFatwa]

100. My suggestions to you are not at all sarcastic. Your view is a popular

one in both political and corporate circles, and in the absence of fundamental and systemic upheaval, the lifestyle you describe will become the conventional one in the US within the decade.

[sistersofmercy]

72. I'm really not sure how to vote on this one

My instincts say "yes, absolutely!" But unfortunately it is not the reality for millions of Americans. That's why I support a living wage, I'm not sure what a living wage should be.
When I was on a plane a few months ago, I read a wonderful article about a T-shirt manufacturer in LA who pays a living wage to his employees, offers medical benefits and other incentives rather than being greedy by taking a bigger salary for himself. His philosophy is, if his employees are happy they will work harder, be more loyal and he will in the long term reap the benefits. I agree with this philosophy. I wish I could remember the man's name but I was extremely fatigued when reading the article eventhough it was greatly uplifting. The business world needs more people like this.
So my answer is ideally "yes" but realistically, I suppose "no" for now.

[DuctapeFatwa]

76. Well, the question is "should" not "do." You are correct that many people

who work full time are not able to support themselves without help.

I am asking if they SHOULD be able to, either in order to keep a capitalist economy as opposed to a feudalist one, or because it is a basic human right that a day's labor is inalienably worth a day's survival.

[sistersofmercy]

79. Then "YES"

Yes, I believe they should. But how in the world does one overhaul a completely unfair, messed up system?

[DuctapeFatwa]

80. By any means necessary

Because your children deserve better than the alternative.

By executive decree, if necessary. By recognizing that a living wage is neither socialism, nor a gift, nor charity nor a handout, and by taking immediate and wide-ranging, yes, revolutionary measures to bring the country back to capitalism.

[sistersofmercy]

81. I believe a living wage is a basic human right

nothing more, nothing less, no cause for a revolution.

[lams712]

86. DUH, YEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!

It's an economic injustice that a person who works full-time (or more w/ a secod job, etc) CAN STILL BE IMPOVERISHED.

If we are to reward hard work we should have a minimum wage that is high enough to keep someone out of poverty and be indexed to inflation.

I assume that was what was meant by the poll.

[DuctapeFatwa]

91. Actually my question was more modest. Although I agree that in an ideal

world, minimum wage should keep one out of poverty, I was merely asking if it should be enough to purchase survival.

[democratreformed]

94. DuctapeFatwa, look at post #93

I did an analysis of sorts of the $8.50 per hour issue. See what you think.

[buddhamama]

97. YES !

n/t

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

101. I'm trying to get as knowledgable as possible on this...

I know that increasing the minimum wage to the level of $8.50 or so would greatly help employees. It would greatly affect small business while only somewhat affecting corporations. I believe if this could be done whereas small business with 150 employees or less could receive some type of tax break that would help alleviate some of the hurt away from their pockets so that corporations do not take over the remainder of the American marketplace. Corporations should have all tax breaks taken away as they need no break as they already are in mass production as a corporation.

The small businesses will need some type of pillow to keep them from crashing down on the pay increase. I look at small businesses needing the help because they do not have the resources or money to be able to increase to such a rate and keep all small businesses in business.

Take for example, a company with 150 employees who average 40 hours per week. To comply with the new minimum wage, they raise wages $2.00 per hour on every employee. Each week the company will have to make an extra $12,000 to pay the difference from the current wages. They will have to increase revenue by $624,000 to make up the difference, and to do this they will either have to raise productivity by working workers harder. Or, they will have to raise prices substantially. IMO the answer to all of this lies in the treatment of corporations.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

[democratreformed]

102. What would be some examples of small businesses that pay minimum wage?

Just so you know, I am not trying to be mean. I really am wondering. From my experience around here, most min. wage jobs are at McDonalds' and Sonic, etc. I am trying to think of some small businesses that are min. wage, but my experience is decidedly lacking in that area. I am most familiar with construction and factory jobs which are both above min wage in all cases I know.

Some other types of places to work that come to mind are the convenience stores (I did work there for min wage a long time ago) and nursing homes. I can see how the convenience store COULD be a family-owned, small business type. I can't really relate it to the nursing home.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

105. Most of the ones that I can think of are.

Say small manufacturers or distributors, or they could entail all retailers. I guess it differs for every region that you visit on what wages are paid for what work. Such as in Tennessee, many manufacturing jobs pay little over minimum wage such as $6 or $7. I'm having trouble thinking of any more without having sufficiently researched this.

In the area that I currently live, there is such a large unskilled labor force that many jobs hire at just above minimum wage at say $6.00 per hour or even $7.00, but to raise the minimum wage to the appropriate level thinking that $8.50 (which I don't know if we would be able to get) would be the rational answer to coincide with the rate of increase of the cost of living. It would require raising the salaries at least $2 to $3 dollars to coincide with the increase in the minimum wage. Jobs that were valued at $6 dollars before minimum wage is raised would be higher at the same rate as the increase of minimum wage (ideally). I love the idea of everyone being able to live comfortably with hard work, but I'm trying to find the best solution that I can so that small business and the workers can both survive or benefit.

[democratreformed]

106. I've been thinking on this some more as well.

The grocery stores (as you say, retail), clothing stores, etc. are most probably minimum wage. I think there may be a couple of factories that are minimum wage or slightly above. And then there are the restaraunt service people - this has always been one of my pet peeves - they are allowed to pay them virtually nothing b/c the customer's tips are supposed to make up the difference. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Another one - the day care workers are all min. wage that I know of. Actually, when I really think about it, most of the jobs around here are probably minimum wage as well. Or, as you say, slightly above.

[DuctapeFatwa]

111. Many small business owners make little more than minimum wage themselves

Once they pay their expenses. And many of them are not able to just start over. They were lucky enough to get their hands on enough capital once to start something, and if the transition to feudalism takes them out, they're gone.

Sole proprietors face similar difficulties, the cost of paying their own social security taxes with no corresponding schedule C break for sole proprietorships with low earnings keeps lots of people with entrepreneurial skills and good ideas stuck in the Wal-Mart. And health care, of course.

The point of feudalism is to benefit the lord, not to benefit the serf, or encourage the serf to start a business.

While there are some things that "larger small businesses" can do, employee ownership was mentioned, or virtually turning the business into a co-op kind of thing, anything really significant has to come from the top.

That big bread factory, for example. Their CEO works hard, and he's a talented, educated man who should be compensated for his training, his skills, and his experience.

But paying him an astronomical salary at the expense of all the people who do the work of the company is not good business - not for a capitalist economy, that encourages competition, that gives consumers choice, and workers motivation and incentive to work hard.

Having the state give the company tax breaks and a smorgasbord of corporate welfare that benefit only the CEO and his top underlings is not good government - not for the government of a responsible state, with a capitalist economy.

These things work fine in a feudalist system. Lord and King hold all the gold. Serfs work, eat, live, or not, at the grace and pleasure of the lord.

Capitalism is about prosperity, even wealth. It is not about exploitation, unchecked greed, or slavery.

[democratreformed]

103. Some new areas to explore brought about by what I have learned from

DuctapeFatwa:
First of all, I am beginning to see why the substance abuse problem is so widespread where I am. I read the reply written up there that explained why the current way of life of low-wage earners is more akin to fuedalism or slavery. To them, the dream that comes with capitalism is dead.

Substance abuse is something, in our businesses, that we deal with on a continual basis. More specifically, right now, meth has permeated every nook and cranny of our county. Just today, my husband said *** didn't show up. I didn't say "I told you so" but I could have. I knew it was only a matter of time and that his "straightening up" was too much to hope for. We've been down that road with him over and over again.

Of course, the things we have talked about on this thread don't fully explain the breadth and depth of the meth problem in our area, but it goes a long way. For a couple of years now, I have been trying to come up with a valid-sounding conspiracy theory about the problem. Now, I realize that it's just another symptom of how close to a very real crisis point our country is.

The other thing: the influx of illegals. These guys come up here, lived 8 or 10 in a house or apartment, work for less wages, and think they're in heaven. I'm sorry to say that I have two uncles who have been taking advantage of them for three years now.

The hard part about that is that my dad and brother are starting to think about it. The labor pool is dismal at best. Isn't it funny that so many are screaming about NOT being able to get jobs, but we can't get anybody who wants to work and can pass a drug test? When I talked to my husband on the phone at lunch today, you could feel his frustration from the other end. His quote "You just can't find anybody that wants to work." I asked him if he needs me to go work with him this weekend. He was so frustrated that he never gave me an answer.

Anyway, these are just a couple more things to think about.

[Snivi Yllom]

104. No

If you work at McDonalds you should not expect to live you whole life on that salary or support a family on that income.

[democratreformed]

107. So what is the criteria

for a job that you SHOULD be able to support yourself with? What is the criteria for a job that SHOULD support a family?

Should McDonald's be able to sponsor a variety of race cars for millions of dollars but their employees be unable to support themselves?

What about the MANAGER of McDonald's. Should that person be able to support themselves or their families?

[DuctapeFatwa]

110. Why not? Why should the value of a day's labor be less than the price of

a day's survival?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

113. Yeah make my burger you uneducated fool...

I want it hot and I want it now.

Education is perfectly available and everyone in this country is treated equal and has equal opportunity...

Seriously where do these losers get off wanting to live like me.

It's like they hate their own freedom.

TWL

[blondeatlast]

115. Is flipping burgers NOT an honest days work???

I don't care what it is, there is simple dignity in an honest day's work. Why should flipping burgers pay less than another job?

I don't like the idea that it is an "industrial" job, but there is nothing wrong with working at McDonald's. Or K-Mart, or even Wal-Mart (may God have mercy on them).

[ThirdWheelLegend]

108. WOW 88% of DUers are voting for Dennis Kucinich?!

Awesome!

*********
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/minimum_wage.php
""The federal minimum wage is $5.15 and would be over $8.50 had Congress adjusted it for inflation over the past 35 years. (Of course Congress routinely adjusts its own members' pay for the cost of living.) Over the past six years since the last time Congress "raised" the minimum wage, we've gone from six states to 12 that have established higher minimum wage levels than the federal. It appears likely that Florida will have a similar proposal on the ballot come November.""
SNIP>>>
""I will make it a top priority to restore the value of the federal minimum wage, bringing it up to at least its 1968 level and indexing it to automatically keep pace with the cost of living. This will allow some workers to quit their second or third jobs and spend more time with their families."

*********
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/economicjustice.php
""I see an America where the economy works for everyone because everyone is working. I see a new horizon in this country where there is no such thing as an acceptable level of unemployment. Nearly 9,000,000 Americans are unemployed. Millions more are not being included in the official count. Average wages are falling. People are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs. The unemployed and the employed alike are experiencing a falling standard of living. The middle class aspirations of many are being dashed.""
SNIP>>
""It is up to the Democratic Party to be the advocates for economic progress for all the people.""

**********
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/farmpolicy.php
"Fair Price and Fair Markets
The first act of a Kucinich Administration will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO, replacing them with bilateral trade agreements designed to benefit family farmers and workers while protecting the health of communities and the environment. Country-of-origin labeling will be required. A Kucinich Administration will empower farmers in the marketplace by providing incentives to join a collective bargaining unit -- with voluntary membership open only to active producers and the right to bring suit in federal court if an agribusiness doesn't bargain in good faith."
SNIP>>

***********
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/rightsworkers.php
"People have a right to:

* Have a job
* Have a safe workplace
* Get decent wages and benefits
* Organize and be represented
* Grieve about working conditions
* Strike
* Fair compensation for injuries on the job
* Sue if injured by negligent employers
* Have secure pension and retirement benefits
* Participate in the political process"
SNIP>>


This is great news, GO DK!

TWL

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

109. I agree wholeheartedly with DK

I agree with DK on many issues, and I find him to be more closely aligned with my beliefs than any of the candidates remaining.