Originally posted by dadudemonBefore the child is born.
Before or after the child?But, if they are working an honest job, I have a hard time opposing your idea...except for the obviously prohibitive costs of providing a living wage to all. Just because someone has a kid does not mean they are entitled to a pay - raise. That would get rather expensive for many organizations.
This is a strawman. The problem was with you stating that there would be no jobs left, not with me stating that there would be unlimited jobs: I never made that statement or assumption. Since you agree that there will be jobs even under that other system, we have no argument.
And to cover the reply where you say I am also strawmanning your point, you said, "....nothing else for them to move up to?" Maybe there is nothing but entry level jobs left in your scenario? Maybe. But it read that you implied there were not jobs left.
That's not the case at all. If they have children, and they don't make enough money to support it, the organization has a mandatory training or education program to get that person into a higher paying job. 🙂 Since organizations already have mandatory education or training programs in place, the only thing new, here, is the idea that an employee should make enough money to support their children. This is not barbaric or even a bad thing.
Not everyone can pay a "living wage" to a father of 6 children. A living wage is doable for many employers for just a single man but not all of them, as well. A living wage is a bit of a pipe dream, too.
Let me make it clearer:
A living wage is doable for some organizations like so:
1. Single man, no family - doable
2. Single man, 1-2 children - doable
2. Single man, 5 children - nope.And another organization may be like this:
1. Single man, no family - not doable.
What is an example of a company that cannot afford a living wage? How about any organization that is in the food business but has fewer that 50 employees?
I think this image is funny:
Also I'm not advocating for someone to offer a wage that a single man with 5 children needs to make. I did say that there will be cases where aid is still needed to be given.
As for the job availability discussion. There will be no more higher paying jobs then there currently are. Therefore a lot of the same hurdles will still be present in this new system for people with lower end training/jobs to get into them. It's easy to say we'll just train them all and get them jobs but I don't see this statement making new jobs so I don't see the numbers of people with kinds getting out of poverty.
I guess I could just ask what happens when the company can not get a person placed at a higher job, Something that be a much higher occurrence then you realize.
As for not being able to pay a living wage to someone with 1 to 2 kids. If a business can not afford to do that then they should not be in business in my opinion.
Originally posted by psmith81992I would agree with this if there was any evidence of serious welfare abuse.
I'm not a policy maker but as a taxpayer who hates the idea of welfare because of its abuse, I am willing to pay more for better oversight and more stringencies towards the deadbeats of American society.
As it stands everything I have ever researched suggests those on welfare are on welfare because they have to be.
Mandatory drug tests has cost millions over the years catching only a handful of applicants while the same number of welfare recipients have been the same.
Those on welfare spend around 50% less then those not on welfare. They make a lot less big purchases like cars computers.
Most people on welfare are still working jobs.
50% of welfare people are off of it in a year. 75% get off welfare within 5 years.
So it's not like most people are trying to stay on welfare assistance. Their jobs just don't give them a livable wage.
Originally posted by Star428Did I say there was no abuse? I said serious abuse. As in it is a wide spread problem.
LOL@"no evidence of welfare abuse". You know, sometimes I think people who make comments like that are living in an alternate fantasy reality from the rest of us; or perhaps they just came down with the last drop of rain or something.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Backpeddaling and to then ice the cake between serious abuse and abuse😂
It's not backpedaling, you can see him say 'serious abuse' right here in the initial post.
Originally posted by Newjak
I would agree with this if there was any evidence of serious welfare abuse.As it stands everything I have ever researched suggests those on welfare are on welfare because they have to be.
Mandatory drug tests has cost millions over the years catching only a handful of applicants while the same number of welfare recipients have been the same.
Those on welfare spend around 50% less then those not on welfare. They make a lot less big purchases like cars computers.
Most people on welfare are still working jobs.
50% of welfare people are off of it in a year. 75% get off welfare within 5 years.
So it's not like most people are trying to stay on welfare assistance. Their jobs just don't give them a livable wage.
Originally posted by Newjak
I would agree with this if there was any evidence of serious welfare abuse.As it stands everything I have ever researched suggests those on welfare are on welfare because they have to be.
Mandatory drug tests has cost millions over the years catching only a handful of applicants while the same number of welfare recipients have been the same.
Those on welfare spend around 50% less then those not on welfare. They make a lot less big purchases like cars computers.
Most people on welfare are still working jobs.
50% of welfare people are off of it in a year. 75% get off welfare within 5 years.
So it's not like most people are trying to stay on welfare assistance. Their jobs just don't give them a livable wage.
Ha! Those look like the stats I posted a couple of weeks back. If you learned this stuff because I posted it, hooray!!!! If you learned it because you independently discovered it...I'm a bit downtrodden but still glad these stats are being posted.
Originally posted by dadudemonThose were independently researched but glad to see I'm not the only seeing the same thing in the numbers.
Ha! Those look like the stats I posted a couple of weeks back. If you learned this stuff because I posted it, hooray!!!! If you learned it because you independently discovered it...I'm a bit downtrodden but still glad these stats are being posted.
Originally posted by Newjak
Before the child is born.[QUOTE=15325241]Originally posted by Newjak
[B]Also I'm not advocating for someone to offer a wage that a single man with 5 children needs to make. I did say that there will be cases where aid is still needed to be given.
I think this is a nice segue into my evil and depraved view on human reproduction.
Originally posted by Newjak
As for the job availability discussion. There will be no more higher paying jobs then there currently are. Therefore a lot of the same hurdles will still be present in this new system for people with lower end training/jobs to get into them. It's easy to say we'll just train them all and get them jobs but I don't see this statement making new jobs so I don't see the numbers of people with kinds getting out of poverty.
No, we won't train them all, they all won't get additional educations, and they all won't get promotions. You're doing that thing again where you go out of your way to mischaracterize the other's position and argue against that new mischaracterization (strawman). Obviously, when you say absurdly ridiculous things about us advocating "train[ing] them all", there are clearly going to be logistical issues (an unsustainable numbers game). Here's an example of what you did:
Me: We should offer and after school program for Essex county schools.
You: OMG! We don't have the funds to start and after school program for all 3143 counties in the US!
A better way to think about this (both of the answers are "no"😉: Did PSmith or I ever once say, "Train and/or educate them all and then move them all into higher paying jobs!!!"? Did we ever once even come close to implying that?
Originally posted by Newjak
I guess I could just ask what happens when the company can not get a person placed at a higher job, Something that be a much higher occurrence then you realize.
This is another strawman. Not once did we say "higher position" or imply that it only meant higher position. It was better paying position. That could be a hierarchical move, lateral move, or interdepartmental move. This means that they could get a functional demotion. The only goal is to move them into a position where they can make more money and support their child/children.
Originally posted by Newjak
As for not being able to pay a living wage to someone with 1 to 2 kids. If a business can not afford to do that then they should not be in business in my opinion.
Do you know how many extremely small businesses you would f*** over with an attitude like this (it's a bad idea)? This is why things like FMLA only apply to businesses greater than 50 people.
Originally posted by dadudemonI will wait for the segue I want to hear this 😛
I think this is a nice segue into my evil and depraved view on human reproduction.No, we won't train them all, they all won't get additional educations, and they all won't get promotions. You're doing that thing again where you go out of your way to mischaracterize the other's position and argue against that new mischaracterization (strawman). Obviously, when you say absurdly ridiculous things about us advocating "train[ing] them all", there are clearly going to be logistical issues (an unsustainable numbers game). Here's an example of what you did:
Me: We should offer and after school program for Essex county schools.
You: OMG! We don't have the funds to start and after school program for all 3143 counties in the US!
A better way to think about this (both of the answers are "no"😉: Did PSmith or I ever once say, "Train and/or educate them all and then move them all into higher paying jobs!!!"? Did we ever once even come close to implying that?
This is another strawman. Not once did we say "higher position" or imply that it only meant higher position. It was better paying position. That could be a hierarchical move, lateral move, or interdepartmental move. This means that they could get a functional demotion. The only goal is to move them into a position where they can make more money and support their child/children.
Do you know how many extremely small businesses you would f*** over with an attitude like this (it's a bad idea)? This is why things like FMLA only apply to businesses greater than 50 people.
I am not intending to strawmen anyone. From my point of view Psmith's idea has presented as a solution to the entire problem. As such I have been discussing it based on the assumption. If I am wrong I am wrong and I will as usual give psmith a chance to clarify.
As it stands though if all you are talking about is this solving a handful of scenarios that are still enclosed in the bigger issue fine. I have already stated that I enjoy the idea of employer's offering paid training to employee's to help learn new skill sets. I just don't see it as a solution to the over all problem. But I can agree it would help a handful of people that have been hit by the overall problem. My problem has been that to me this was presented as the golden bullet which I do not see it as.
As for the higher position. I thin we can agree that most position movements in companies that do paid training are into hierarchal positions such as manager. Or a a job higher up in the ladder. Most pay increases in companies are not lateral. I feel less so when we talk about moving from a lower paying job to a higher paying one unless you are talking about marginal raises like 3% or less a year ones.
I admit extremely small businesses like those less than 50 employees could be hit hard and I could see concessions being made to those companies to help allowing to build up slowly to the new living wage over a decent time span. Probably more so for already existing companies. I think newly created companies that go understanding that need to pay a living wage will be better suited to having to exist within those means.
I have more on the subject of businesses and living wages but I will save that more for my reply to psmith's post.
Originally posted by psmith81992I think we need to discuss to separate things here. One is that my opinion of a good business model is that it is the job of the employer to provide the means for their employees to at least maintain or give the resources to a decent healthy lifestyle. And I do believe this includes the ability to have a reasonable number of children like 1-2. Considering having children has always been a natural part of the human lifecycle.
That is ignorant as all hell. It's the business' responsibility to plan accordingly when its employees **** up? Really dumb.
What I feel we are discussing is an exploitive business model where a business is allowed to grossly underpay their employees so that business can increase profits for a select few. Especially those in positions deemed lower skill non-skilled. I think in our current state of affairs this is the most common model we see.
Considering this is the business model of most large to medium businesses and those businesses workforce make up a large portion of the total workforce. So while I can see concessions in compensation being made for smaller companies I completely think it should be the the responsibility of larger corporations to take care of their employees instead of trying to exploit them to gain record profits which has been the case over the last decade where profits have been going up but the average salary has only barely gone up.
But if you go into making a company and you're trying to pay your employees a non living wage so that you can be successful I completely believe you should not be a business owner.
If you want to start a company the person taking the hits financially should be the owner not their employees.
Talking in first person about a problem you are trying to associate yourself with does not work. Its a god awful read.