Missouri Returning to Reason - Rolling back minimum wage

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Why should we be forced to shoulder responsibility for adult strangers who aren't shouldering their own?

Answer...

See, up here we try to take care of our own.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Don't act all superior. My husband and I donate quite a lot to multiple private charities annually. Including getting out and collecting food, necessities and money for those in need in our community and county.

We don't believe it should be forced on others. Some years, some folks don't give as much or nothing at all...we then see they have gone a family vacation or actually fixed the roof on their home.

We have learned not to denigrate others who may want or need to enjoy their own life. They often feel so blessed they double up donations the following year.

I believe charity begins at home...then spreading outwards through one's community, county, state, etc. never forced upon others! They will give what they can give. The only selfish out there in this world are those who do not accept responsibility for themselves and theirs.

Minimum wages should not be determined based upon national averages. My family in other states...east and west coast think we are rich! Trust me...we are not...we are thrifty and fortunate to live in an area that cost of living is not extreme. Everyone commutes 20 miles to work. Cost of living varies greatly in the US and within individual states as well. One just has to make decisions on what is really important to live.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Can you live on 7 dollars an hour?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The simple fact is this. Many just don't have the ability [ read brains, IQ, what ever ] to go on to higher learning. They just can't learn the things to make it in Engineering, Design or any other college required job. What do we do with them? Just say "Tough Sh** let'em starve'? "Let'em live on the streets"?
Be honest, you know as well as I do, there are many, many people like that. They don't have the brains or the will it takes to go through 2 or 4 years of schooling to get that piece of paper that says "You can do that job".
And then what? Pay them $3 an hour to flip burgers or ring up your purchase at the Dollar Store? Have them work 3 jobs just to exist?
I don't mean go to the movies on the weekend treat thing, I mean just to stay alive. No kids, because they can't afford to have them. Literally. If they did, they would all starve.
What now?
Or are we doing the "let them die" kinda thing? You only get to stay alive if you have a college education and a good job. Hey!! We could pay the guys who would stand in line for the chance to dig those millions of graves in food!! HAHA That'll keep'em in their place!!........Right?

You should never be content living on a minimum wage job, minimum wage ensures you get a decent wage as a stepping stone, if you're content with it by all means live on it. But if the minimum wage was a liveable wage there would be no striving to better yourself.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

How low is your opinion of humanity's abilities and will to survive? How condescending to assume that "If we don't take care of them, they'll all die!"

I was responding to someone who said "let them starve". I didn't specify the number of neighbours involved, although it was implicit that 'neighbours' doesn't necessarily mean a large number.

I think that the assumption that welfare claimants simply can't be bothered to get jobs demonstrates a 'low opinion' of humanity.

Also, the fact that people are willing to play beggar-thy-neighbour for the sake of a few cents more on their paycheck could drive a cynic to have a 'low opinion' of humanity. (I'm an optimist and tend to take the view that such people are just ill-informed and blinkered, and that is a problem that can be rectified with reasonable arguments).

9/11 conspiracy debunkers often proclaim that it is ridiculous to suggest the US government would allow a few thousand people to die in a terrorist attacj, just to wage a foreign war.

Frequent conversations along the above lines have persuaded me that if the twin towers had been packed with welfare claimants instead of bankers, conservatives for miles around would have turned up with hotdogs and beers to watch the spectacle that September morning.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have traveled to every poor city and town in the Midwest and have seen first hand how the poor in this country live. When you have no money and can't afford to drive 5 miles down the road let alone 100s of miles away. You have no choice but to stay where you are and try to make a living where you're at. Which in most cases involves some sort of hustle/ illegal activity.

You are correct in that we shouldn't just give them money but maybe assist them in moving to better areas. I also believe that their should be education and/ or work requirements to receive assistance. As well as mandatory drug tests. As I have known too many people that have sold their benefits for 50 cents on the dollar. Just to get high. Those that fail would be offered rehabilitation.

Same goes for non violent criminals. I believe they should be rehabilitated instead of incarcerated. As being a non violent felon makes it almost impossible to get work. Thus pushing these individuals into repeat offender status and perpetuating the cycle.

Poverty is a complicated matter and can't simply be blamed on one or two factors and needs to be handled as such.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Bullcrap! The modern conservative is engaged in an exercise of believing the government is the least efficient mechanism for getting assistance to people who actually need it. This isn't about "selfishness," it's about personal freedom and control over one's own earnings. Let me put it into terms relevant to recent history...

"I won't have to worry about paying for gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying for my mortgage. If I help him (Obama), he's gonna help me."
How is this not a massive voter manipulation effort directed at construction of a pool of Kept Voters who are only voting for someone because "He's going to pay for stuff for me?" Why does wanting to have control over YOUR OWN earnings equal selfishness, but shoving your hands into others' pockets to take what you had zero role in earning to fund your own endeavors isn't selfish, entitled, theft, etc?

You don't take care of your own, your government takes from you, skims off the top, then gives the remainder to them in exchange for votes, and finishes off by taking all of the credit. It's a disgrace.

a reply to: DAVID64

I have 3 daughters. One now has a masters in psychology and bachelors in criminality. Another is currently working on her bachelors in psychology and juvenile criminality. They are working in their respective fields helping delinquent juveniles. My other daughter was not like them. She has worked many minimum wage jobs and currently working a contract as a stable manager. She, also, has grabbed onto an opportunity with an insurance provider who is paying for her health certifications that will provide her a salary better than min wage and plus commission.

Yes...folks are different..,but excuses help no one. One needs to recognize and grab on opportunities that present themselves! Too many get sucked into thinking this is it...and give up. They miss out on many opportunities because they stop seeking or have been made to feel inferior. My one daughter felt extremely adequate with her older and younger sister pushing on through college. ( they both did this on their own...scholarships, competing for grants and loans)! I have only supplied refundable bottles to them to assist with purchasing used books or simply renting. They did the research and did it.

My middle daughter, I am proud of. It has taken a couple of years to get her to realize she can pull herself up in a different way. She is her own individual...not a cookie cutter version of anyone else! She has found her way and is strengthened.

We have to stop making excuses for so many to give up. Life is challenging for everyone. Different challenges...but challenging.

Edit add: believe me...tough love sucks...my own daughters were rebellious and now that they are older they realize that I have always loved them and my advice...though seemingly harsh....was the best thing for them. For me...I am thankful that my children will now be able to take care of themselves and advise my grandchildren.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

I can't disagree with your ideas. Bottom line here, something needs to change. The system of "we take more and more money from people who actually earned it and give it to these folks over here, who then happily put on their Kept Voter hats and keep us in power" is not sustainable nor is it even remotely defensible. Hell, I keep going back to this, why is it even in the government's list of responsibilities? It sure as hell isn't something the Constitution tasks them with.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Unless there's an anchor tied to your ass, freedom of mobility and career mobility are two very well defensed civil liberties present in the US. How arrogantly condescending of workers you are here in the real world.

Someone has to be in the bottom x% of earners though. Do you just say screw those people?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Nothin

"But: wouldn't the others be sweating just as much, if everyone worked?"

Without all of the social spending crap American workers are taxed to hell to fund, all of the Kept Voter programs, plus all of the artificial manipulations of the free market inherent to a system by which some are subsidized, those sweating more would take home more of their own actual earnings.

But there would also be more things you have to buy, and you would be inserting another middleman. It wouldn't increase your disposable income.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Your OP proves that you are a jerk

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, BUT once that link is broken, you have a much stronger chain (albeit a slightly shorter one).

You also end up with a new weakest link to target.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Yeah, sometimes you have to pack up your stuff and head to where the jobs are. I'd like to live a couple hundred miles off the road system in a cabin tucked away in the bush, but I can't make a living doing that while being an engineer, so here I am in a city. Again, why should those of us responsible enough to work and succeed pay to subsidize someone who just wants to stay living where they are but can't provide for themself?

Because you choose to live in society with them.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I don't want you to "go on," I want you to wake up. You, yes YOU, are a facilitator of failure by accepting every excuse for failure under the sun. It's a harsh reality, but this country needs a lot more "Hey, dumbass... YOU are the reason YOU are a failure" messages and a lot less "It's not your fault you failed, everything is lined up against you" messages.

If you choose to live in a Democracy or a Republic, you share in the responsibility for the well being of society. It is 100% your responsibility to help people on drugs, with an insufficient education, a bad job, an addition, or whatever else. If you say it's not your job, then you are in essence saying it's no ones job. In which case, no one should have a say in society... it's a total rejection of your responsibility as a citizen.

originally posted by: Chromium51
You should never be content living on a minimum wage job, minimum wage ensures you get a decent wage as a stepping stone, if you're content with it by all means live on it. But if the minimum wage was a liveable wage there would be no striving to better yourself.

So if you made $100 an hour you wouldn't strive for more?

a reply to: Aazadan

Do me a favor, show me the constitutional or even legal basis of this ridiculous "social contract" bullcrap that has become a buzz word over the past 10 years or so.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

Do me a favor, show me the constitutional or even legal basis of this ridiculous "social contract" bullcrap that has become a buzz word over the past 10 years or so.

Show me the social benefit to having an underclass who can't support themselves.