It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Rent and real estate prices are ridiculous and people are not making any more money than they used to. Even food prices going up and the value of the dollar going down. On top of that almost the totality of manufacturing anything has gone offshore. Now even office jobs, customer service jobs, everything is offshore.
You can get a #ty job somewhere but its not possible to live on. You can get 2 jobs and work 20 hours a day to make a living but who can do that? Fu*% it.. go homeless and do drugs.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod
Oh, but Seattle has the $15/hour living wage for all jobs.
Are you admitting that just hiking the minimum wasn't enough? But I thought the goal was to create a livable minimum.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod
So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Meshakhad
The problem with Seattle is not drugs. It is not homelessness. It is not lack of responsibility.
The problem with Seattle is capitalism.
Don't worry. That will be gone from Seattle soon enough and things will continue to get worse there. What will you blame then?
originally posted by: Meshakhad
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Meshakhad
The problem with Seattle is not drugs. It is not homelessness. It is not lack of responsibility.
The problem with Seattle is capitalism.
Don't worry. That will be gone from Seattle soon enough and things will continue to get worse there. What will you blame then?
I'd say capitalism and wealth inequality are the cause of most societal problems today.
originally posted by: vonclod
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod
So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!
I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: vonclod
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod
So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!
I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.
It's a never-ending cycle though. You raise the wage, all the prices raise to compensate for paying for it, thus cost of living increases. Therefore, wages must also go up. It will never end, so we will end up with that $100/hr living wage.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Nickn3
Thank you for not perpetuating the faux concern for drug addition and homelessness. I think you're very correct that arnarchy is not effective in large, dense populations. What would you suggest to deal with the issues?
originally posted by: Meshakhad
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Meshakhad
The problem with Seattle is not drugs. It is not homelessness. It is not lack of responsibility.
The problem with Seattle is capitalism.
Don't worry. That will be gone from Seattle soon enough and things will continue to get worse there. What will you blame then?
I'd say capitalism and wealth inequality are the cause of most societal problems today.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: vonclod
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod
So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!
I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.
It's a never-ending cycle though. You raise the wage, all the prices raise to compensate for paying for it, thus cost of living increases. Therefore, wages must also go up. It will never end, so we will end up with that $100/hr living wage.
originally posted by: Never Despise
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: vonclod
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: vonclod
So basically, you believe in the idea of the $100/hour minimum because that's what would eventually happen. Hello, Zimbabwe!
I don't believe I said that at all. I just figure wage increases should follow cost of living, not that a base wage has to be a certain #.
It's a never-ending cycle though. You raise the wage, all the prices raise to compensate for paying for it, thus cost of living increases. Therefore, wages must also go up. It will never end, so we will end up with that $100/hr living wage.
How do you explain the fact that most people had a living wage in the 1950s-1980 or so? In fact a single income earner could feed clothe and house a family of four and still save for retirement. There was an enormous middle class and it wasn't Zimbabwe.