Cowards!

piezoe said:
Do your calculations in constant dollars please and get back to us. The information you need to do it is easily available on the net. Thanks.
More...

You don't need to condescend, piezoe. I know what constant dollar is. I understand your point, but perhaps you missed mine. I lived in such a way that the money I had available to me at that time was utilized in such a way that I could survive on it in that time's economy. I'm well aware of the differences today.

Are you aware of how many young adults refuse to to live without the so called luxuries of today? How many young people do you know actually try to live within a specific budget? I've said previously, I'm not opposed to bringing the min in line with the current COL, but at the same time I have personally heard 20 something's say they would rather use their rent money to have an I phone and choose to live at home then go out and try to advance their lives.

If you want to get sophisticated, why don't you lecture us on why the cost of living has gotten so high. Or would you prefer I google that, too.
 
Karl Marx was right! The guy with the machines makes the money. Computers can trade financial stuff way, way better than I ever will. The man for that job is a computer. Check out that 3D printing thingy, now that is wild, that is in it's infancy for sure but solar power can run it and the price barrier is disappearing. Those machines are going to make some people some coin for years to come. Forget all this jobless recovery stuff, roll with Karl Marx himself. You can't tell me that know-it-all wasn't jealous of all the guys with the machinery! You want to be a Libertarian, sit around all day smoking your pipe and trying to balance the power among all your neighbors? Go for it, don't consult me on that though, I'll be tending to my machinery. You want to help the less fortunate? Do it with your own money for a change, alright? We're all pretty fed up with your lame assed ideas about how we are all going to share what we don't have. You want to be some self reliant conservative? Fine but it's a lot of work and we all know that WIN stands for Work Is Nonprofit, just sayin'
 
wjk said:
You don't need to condescend, piezoe. I know what constant dollar is. I understand your point, but perhaps you missed mine. I lived in such a way that the money I had available to me at that time was utilized in such a way that I could survive on it in that time's economy. I'm well aware of the differences today.

Are you aware of how many young adults refuse to to live without the so called luxuries of today? How many young people do you know actually try to live within a specific budget? I've said previously, I'm not opposed to bringing the min in line with the current COL, but at the same time I have personally heard 20 something's say they would rather use their rent money to have an I phone and choose to live at home then go out and try to advance their lives.

If you want to get sophisticated, why don't you lecture us on why the cost of living has gotten so high. Or would you prefer I google that, too.
More...
The cost of living in nominal dollars rises because of inflation. But in constant dollars it does not change nearly so much. But that is another topic altogether. It seems to me the important thing for all of us to recognize is that when we were young and working at minimum wage jobs we made significantly more money than young workers make now (in constant dollars of course). For example you made approximately 30% more for doing the same job. In the mid nineteen 60's a minimum wage worker made about 45% more! It was possible for us to get by on what we made, it isn't possible for a minimum wage worker to do that today, no matter how frugal they are. Someone, or some entity, must subsidize their wage to make it possible for them to survive. Is that the kind of economy you want? I hope not. We need to raise the minimum wage up to approximately what it was in the mid nineteen sixties or about $10.50/hr. That was a time of relative prosperity and a contributor to that prosperity was a decent minimum wage. Our economy will improve if we raise the minimum.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
The cost of living in nominal dollars rises because of inflation. But in constant dollars it does not change nearly so much. But that is another topic altogether. It seems to me the important thing for all of us to recognize is that when we were young and working at minimum wage jobs we made significantly more money than young workers make now (in constant dollars of course). For example you made approximately 30% more for doing the same job. In the mid nineteen 60's a minimum wage worker made about 45% more! It was possible for us to get by on what we made, it isn't possible for a minimum wage worker to do that today, no matter how frugal they are. Someone, or some entity, must subsidize their wage to make it possible for them to survive. Is that the kind of economy you want? I hope not. We need to raise the minimum wage up to approximately what it was in the mid nineteen sixties or about $10.50/hr. That was a time of relative prosperity and a contributor to that prosperity was a decent minimum wage. Our economy will improve if we raise the minimum.
More...

Thanks for clarifying. I actually agree with you regarding your min wage figure. Current rates make financial survival next to impossible. One of the things that troubles me is how high renting apartments (and houses) has become. That said, young, struggling individuals need to budget and prioritize their needs vs their wants. That was more to my point in our prior discussion.

Also, though not always feasible, picking a location that is more affordable might be an option if one has mobility. My wife and I, though decades beyond when we worked for min wage, (I've been self employed since 91), have made the decision on several occasions to stay put because our part of the country has a relatively low cost of living. Even though she might have received a raise, it still would have cost us more to hit the big cities. I agree, a fair min wage to cover basic needs is a must.
 
wjk said:
...That said, young, struggling individuals need to budget and prioritize their needs vs their wants. That was more to my point in our prior discussion.
More...
My wife just spent 5 days doing charity dental work for the poor in Jamaica. While they mostly live in abject poverty filth and squalor. Shortly after a her cleaning one little girl pulled out her cell phone to answer a call.

It's the same here in the states. If you can afford big screen TV's tattoos tobacco alcohol cell phones trips to the hair salon and drugs. You can pay your fucking rent. And have no business bitching about your min wage.
 
Lucrum said:
My wife just spent 5 days doing charity dental work for the poor in Jamaica. While they mostly live in abject poverty filth and squalor. Shortly after a her cleaning one little girl pulled out her cell phone to answer a call.

It's the same here in the states. If you can afford big screen TV's tattoos tobacco alcohol cell phones trips to the hair salon and drugs. You can pay your fucking rent. And have no business bitching about your min wage.
More...
Here is another anecdotal story that will curl your hair. It comes from a close friend who "teaches" a class of profoundly retarded (officially another term is used) "children" in our local public high school. One girl, 16 years of age, is unmanageable except by someone highly experienced and with the greatest amount of attention. Her mother, who weighs approximately 400 lbs, and is because of her weight, disabled, and also retarded, but not profoundly so, shows little interest in the girl. She receives check for the care of the girl each month. She has other younger retarded children as well, and she receives an additional check for each. My friend says it is approximately $1200/month per each. The amount paid is more then the parent of a healthy, mentally fit child would receive on welfare. My friend's opinion is that the mother is not giving the girl her prescribed medication that would help make her less destructive and allow her to focus to some extent. He suspects that many of the children in his class are not receiving their medication at home and that instead the parent is taking the medication to get high. (They can test the children for medication, but it is an involved process to get permission to do so. Without a court order, it may require that the parent give permission, I'm not sure) He is of the opinion that the mother, of this particular child, encourages her retarded children to copulate to produce more children as each adds to the mother's income. The public school system takes care of the children during the day until they are 21 years of age. My friend says that it is sometimes unclear who the biological parents of his children are -- they get varying stories regarding the parentage, and it changes from time to time. This particular child is, as are some of the others, dropped off at school each day, undernourished and filthy.

We need to find a way within the law, or change the law, to create a situation were work pays more than welfare and there is no incentive to produce retarded children as a means of cashing in. This much I am certain of, the cost to the taxpayer for caring for these (perhaps intentionally produced) children is large compared to the cost of educating a healthy child. For example, in a class room of approximately 10 profoundly retarded children there will, in this State, be one trained social-worker-teacher and two assistants, and apparently that is barely enough personnel to handle the situation. My friend is a hard working caring individual. He loves and cares for the children in his "classroom" to the best of his ability and comes home exhausted day.

Any ideas Lucrum?
 
Regarding the withholding of medication ... and going beyond your 'retarded' situation ... I see it all the time at the schools I volunteer at. Kids not on their prescribed meds acting out in class, unruly and having to be removed from class. And some, but not all, are where parents are not buying the meds and spending $ on other things selfishly. But there's no consequence .... and if school administrators or teachers tried to intervene they'd be told it's none of their business to intervene in the 'private' life of the kid/family.
 
piezoe said:
...We need to find a way within the law, or change the law, to create a situation were work pays more than welfare and there is no incentive to produce retarded children as a means of cashing in. This much I am certain of, the cost to the taxpayer for caring for these (perhaps intentionally produced) children is large compared to the cost of educating a healthy child. For example, in a class room of approximately 10 profoundly retarded children there will, in this State, be one trained social-worker-teacher and two assistants, and apparently that is barely enough personnel to handle the situation. My friend is a hard working caring individual. He loves and cares for the children in his "classroom" to the best of his ability and comes home exhausted day.

Any ideas Lucrum?
More...
That's the kind of story I'd expect to hear from a concerned conservative tax payer, not you. :)

Decades of wonton abuse of welfare by both the govt giving it away and it's recipients. Along with the mentality of at least two generations now that have been brainwashed into thinking the federal government is somehow responsible for "fixing"...well...everything. Isn't realistically going to be improved let alone solved easily or in a short period of time.
Tax payers like me have been complaining and warning of where a nanny state will eventually takes us for years. Well guess what, we're there.

I don't think one or two new laws or changes to existing laws will make much difference. We need comprehensive sweeping reforms that only a handful of congressmen are even willing to mention. Let alone vote for.

I could list my ideas but you know what. Until "we the people" stop voting for career incumbents. Nothing absolutely G D NOTHING is going to substantially improve. Whether it be welfare tax code long term foreign policy government waste you name it. All these sort of discussions by us are moot until we make a nearly clean sweep of congress. In my estimation virtually every problem/issue we face today is either a direct result of or an unintended consequence of the corruption stupidity short sightedness and dishonesty in Washington D.C.
I figure maybe...15% or so currently "serving" in congress have our nations best interest at heart.

Not to change the subject but as a continuation of the above.
I believe this country is as divided today as it was in 1860. Instead of states rights and maintaining the union we're infighting over gay rights, "free" you name it, the 2nd A, supposed racism...well...you know all the issues. We have a dumb downed uninformed electorate too busy with their favorite sports sitcoms or reality TV and or too lazy to educate themselves with the issues OR their political candidates true positions.
I'm sure you've seen all the videos of various voters being interviewed.

Bottom line, short of a coup and a truly "good" near dictator, unaffected or corrupted by the absolute power. Leading this country and cleaning up all it's ills. I think we're past the point of no return and our fate is already sealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top