The Minimum Wage: What's the Big Deal?

#401
#401
Sin City Vol said:
I don't think the majority women see being a homemaker isn't an honorable job, if you have kids young it's hard for either parent to get an education and raise a family. We decided to wait and have kids after her education was complete, mine took years to finish because I was in the military. I believe most women and men for that matter want to work because life is expensive and you wanna stay ahead, which is very difficult no matter how much you make.

its a lifestyle choice we all have to make, neither option is wrong
Click to expand...

Get ahead? What's that? I joke all the time that I would need a time machine to get just one week in the future as far as bills go. We save a little but always get wiped out when we get blindsided by a transmission going out, furnace, etc. Thats life
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#402
#402
volprof said:
Perhaps this solely explains it all, but I am still doubtful that it explains it alone. For instance, it's not clear to me what exactly the relationship is between our defense spending, Europe's lack thereof, and northern European wage earnings. Northern European social programs and entitlements? Yes, it's clear to me what that relationship is with American military spending and defense subsidies, but not with wage earnings.
Click to expand...

its just different on how they spend their money. Americans have more stuff and would generally not be willing to live a European lifestyle. however we pay drastically less for the necessities. Housing, food, clothing, water. I haven't looked in a while but they (did, at least) spend a higher percentage on those things than we do, so they need the offset to cover the rest.

also, and this is pure anecdotal, their minimum wage earner far out classes ours. In small town Germany there was Burger King worker that spoke Chinese (at least well enough to take orders) and English (fluently). Its just one example of one item that would justify the difference, but impressed the heck out of me.
 
#403
#403
marcusluvsvols said:
Get ahead? What's that? I joke all the time that I would need a time machine to get just one week in the future as far as bills go. We save a little but always get wiped out when we get blindsided by a transmission going out, furnace, etc. Thats life
Click to expand...

I agree!!! About 5 years ago we shut our lives down to bare necessities for about 3 months and put all our extra money into paying off bills and a car. It was well worth it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#405
#405
SpaceCoastVol said:
My argument was simply for the sake of argument on the issue. Your missive about a society not being able to reproduce itself is ridiculous at a minimum. I still fail to see any hypocrisy in my "argument", but I am not nearly as wired in to the liberal mantra as you so I guess I can defer to your 'wisdom' on that. And I have no idea what you mean by decadent and self defeating. If you are talking about the survival of the species, I will stop typing so that I can roll on the floor with laughter. Or maybe the liberal genius believes that people of a certain intelligence level should be encouraged to breed? Unstable ground with that one professor, but I would love for you to step in that direction.

What I was merely pointing out is that if employers are forced to provide maternity/paternity leave by the .gov, it could be in their interest to not hire people that fall within that group. As I said before, no-one is inexpendible. If there is a 25-35 year old woman out there that is so important to a company's prosperity/survival that they can not do without her, that is more than likely an exception rather than rule, and I would bet that she is probably more dedicated to that company than her ticking clock because she would be highly compensated. I guess you believe the "right" to have children trumps any rights of anybody else as well including those of her employer?

And I'd still knock you out for your other comments.
Click to expand...

How am I supposed to hold a rational conversation with a person who insists on using dumb platitudes about liberalism, when I'm not even a liberal?

No, not the human race. Your country. You know that group of people you owe your livelihood to, granted in part from your own initiative as well, but also largely despise. That's who.

And what you say doesn't happen elsewhere. If it were to indeed happen here, then why? Sounds like something we should fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#407
#407
#409
#409
volprof said:
How am I supposed to hold a rational conversation with a person who insists on using dumb platitudes about liberalism, when I'm not even a liberal?

No, not the human race. Your country. You know that group of people you owe your livelihood to, granted in part from your own initiative as well, but also largely despise. That's who.

And what you say doesn't happen elsewhere. If it were to indeed happen here, then why? Sounds like something we should fix.
Click to expand...
Good lord are you off the rails on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#410
#410
SpaceCoastVol said:
Good lord are you off the rails on this.
Click to expand...

You don't despise at least half of your countrymen? I'm not talking about simple resentment; we all resent one group or another. I'm talking about deep, ancient hate for those you consider, whether accurately or not, to be unfair burdens upon you and should essentially just die. Because, as I read your posts, it seems to me that you do.

But perhaps I'm being unfair. Maybe a misinterpret you, kind of like how you constantly think I'm a liberal for some reason. So you can set the record straight once and for all.
 
#411
#411
volprof said:
You don't despise at least half of your countrymen? I'm not talking about simple resentment; we all resent one group or another. I'm talking about deep, ancient hate for those you consider, whether accurately or not, to be unfair burdens upon you and should essentially just die. Because, as I read your posts, it seems to me that you do.

But perhaps I'm being unfair. Maybe a misinterpret you, kind of like how you constantly think I'm a liberal for some reason. So you can set the record straight once and for all.
Click to expand...
wow. Somebody pizz on your Wheaties this morning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#413
#413
volprof said:
I know common sense doesn't often account for much, but it only stands to reason that double the labor equals double the wealth. The more laborers you have in the market, the more there is available to us as consumers. The 1950s weren't going to last forever.

Granted, that wealth isn't always distributed equally, but that's something that the unabashed supporters of unfettered capitalism will have to address for you, as I am not one of them.

I have to admit, VolNation never fails to throw me a loop. You never know what perspective you'll have to argue against. For example, I didn't know that being against social security was an actual position until I joined this forum. I also didn't know that being against government aid of any sort was another. Similarly, I never expected to argue with someone why women should or should not be cloistered in a kitchen. But, sure enough.
Click to expand...

actually its kinda the opposite. We doubled supply of workers without doubling demand. Women were already buying stuff so them being in the work force didn't increase demand. And most of the time they were going to work because they needed the money and there was a void.

I have seen lots of numbers for the value of a stay at home mom. This one seems really high, but the low estimates start at around 60,000.
stay-at-home-mom.png


so depending on their wage you could say the average family is losing a fair amount of value with mom working out of the house.

and as you have pointed out in European countries with a dwindling population they need someone to fill the void. They need more women working than we do. Therefore the value of an extra worker isn't as high here as it is there. obviously in high paying positions it is certainly worth it but at the floor level it simply isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#414
#414
volprof said:
So, for the record, this is you setting the record straight?
Click to expand...
Why don't you go back and try to read my posts on the subject and get your preconceived notions that I am a nihilist/misogynist/hater of everybody out of whatever it is that you call a brain? It was a discussion as to how a business could effectively manage a mandate by the government concerning forced benefits to a certain group of people that they might happen to employ. You turned it into some sort of warfare against women. Your thoughts on this subject definitely lean to the liberal side even though you proclaim otherwise, and I am not saying that is a bad thing. I just don't agree with it, because if I were a business owner/operator, I am going to do whatever is best for my business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#415
#415
LouderVol said:
actually its kinda the opposite. We doubled supply of workers without doubling demand. Women were already buying stuff so them being in the work force didn't increase demand. And most of the time they were going to work because they needed the money and there was a void.

I have seen lots of numbers for the value of a stay at home mom. This one seems really high, but the low estimates start at around 60,000.
stay-at-home-mom.png


so depending on their wage you could say the average family is losing a fair amount of value with mom working out of the house.

and as you have pointed out in European countries with a dwindling population they need someone to fill the void. They need more women working than we do. Therefore the value of an extra worker isn't as high here as it is there. obviously in high paying positions it is certainly worth it but at the floor level it simply isn't.
Click to expand...

But weren't the women just being consumers through their husbands' wages?

Your chart is interesting, and I have seen other studies about what a homemaker's work is worth, provided it was treated like other jobs. The biggest thing I think that could make it worth more for a woman not to work outside the home regards childcare expenses. Nonetheless, much of this work is going to get done anyhow, whether the woman works outside the home or not, so I don't know that it is a perfect way of assessing whether or not a woman should work outside the home. I think this matter becomes even more complicated when you bring in college costs. Granted, not everyone will go to college, but it cannot hurt for two incomes to help its funding, rather than one income and/or the state/feds/loans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#416
#416
Let's all take the time to thanks Volprof for taking the time from his duties at the university to enlighten us with his obviously superior level of intellect and wisdom........we are so lucky to have him to give us all the CORRECT way to look/think about EVERYTHING......:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#417
#417
SpaceCoastVol said:
Why don't you go back and try to read my posts on the subject and get your preconceived notions that I am a nihilist/misogynist/hater of everybody out of whatever it is that you call a brain? It was a discussion as to how a business could effectively manage a mandate by the government concerning forced benefits to a certain group of people that they might happen to employ. You turned it into some sort of warfare against women. Your thoughts on this subject definitely lean to the liberal side even though you proclaim otherwise, and I am not saying that is a bad thing. I just don't agree with it, because if I were a business owner/operator, I am going to do whatever is best for my business.
Click to expand...

I have been providing evidence about what is best for your hypothetical business, and hog even confirmed. It's best for your business to do paid maternity leave. Why in the hell most don't in this country, I have no clue. I guess it's just a combination of antiquated business practices that cutting-edge companies, like Google, are thankfully getting us away from and classism/sexism. Sure, the government forces you out of your self-delusion of absolute freedom, affecting none of your freedoms that truly matter, and saves you money in the process. If that sounds like "liberalism," then it is only "liberalism" in our American context, as staunchly conservative leaders from the past, like Bismarck, and staunchly conservative leaders today, like Putin, can understand how this isn't a conservative v. liberal matter. It's a pragmatic measure for saving money. If the fact that the government has to get involved to do it makes some people mad, then so be it. They'll be fine later, once they realize they've saved money. And if even that doesn't make them happy, then they can retain their ideological purity, as the rest of us pour them into the dustbins of history.

My accusations regarding you weren't premised upon that one post in question. They're premised upon your entire VolNation oeuvre.
 
#418
#418
T-TownVol said:
Let's all take the time to thanks Volprof for taking the time from his duties at the university to enlighten us with his obviously superior level of intellect and wisdom........we are so lucky to have him to give us all the CORRECT way to look/think about EVERYTHING......:hi:
Click to expand...

You sound like 1972. He's always carrying on about how "superior" I think I am.

What you fail to comprehend, for some reason, is that I never attack posters who treat others with respect or who don't represent very harmful and/or hateful ideas. I couldn't care less if some posters here disagree with me ideologically. Where I get upset is when some of you make sexist remarks, racist comments, or other hateful posts, or directly insult other posters personally, like blaming them directly for all of society's ills.

If this gives the impression of me "feeling superior," then so be it. I wouldn't expect a bunch of knuckleheads like yourselves to understand this anyhow.

I now await 1972's next post about how I'm such an arrogant person for unfairly criticizing Dick Cheney.
 
Last edited:
#419
#419
volprof said:
I have been providing evidence about what is best for your hypothetical business, and hog even confirmed. It's best for your business to do paid maternity leave. Why in the hell most don't in this country, I have no clue. I guess it's just a combination of antiquated business practices that cutting-edge companies, like Google, are thankfully getting us away from and classism/sexism. Sure, the government forces you out of your self-delusion of absolute freedom, affecting none of your freedoms that truly matter, and saves you money in the process. If that sounds like "liberalism," then it is only "liberalism" in our American context, as staunchly conservative leaders from the past, like Bismarck, and staunchly conservative leaders today, like Putin, can understand how this isn't a conservative v. liberal matter. It's a pragmatic measure for saving money. If the fact that the government has to get involved to do it makes some people mad, then so be it. They'll be fine later, once they realize they've saved money. And if even that doesn't make them happy, then they can retain their ideological purity, as the rest of us pour them into the dustbins of history.

My accusations regarding you weren't premised upon that one post in question. They're premised upon your entire VolNation oeuvre.
Click to expand...
So your position is that this is the ultimate solution then? Completely bullet proof. No loopholes, and no way out for the businesses that do not choose to operate their business in that manner. Sounds like a nanny state know-it-all government to me, and that scares the hell out of me. All the rest of your post concerning being relegated to dustbins of history, and the government forcing these kinds of issues will save them money is pure arrogance. The exact same kind of arrogance that gave us Obamacare. And your continued insistence on the classism/sexism argument is tiresome and weak. My position is not that at all. The market will decide. Every potential employee negotiates or is told the benefit package they will be offered. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. It used to be a free country.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#420
#420
volprof said:
You sound like 1972. He's always carrying on about how "superior" I think I am.

What you fail to comprehend, for some reason, is that I never attack posters who treat others with respect or who don't represent very harmful and/or hateful ideas. I couldn't care less if some posters here disagree with me ideologically. Where I get upset is when some of you make sexist remarks, racist comments, or other hateful posts, or directly insult other posters personally, like blaming them directly for all of society's ills.

If this gives the impression of me "feeling superior," then so be it. I wouldn't expect a bunch of knuckleheads like yourselves to understand this anyhow.

I now await 1972's next post about how I'm such an arrogant person for unfairly criticizing Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
Man it is deep in here. :eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#421
#421
volprof said:
You sound like 1972. He's always carrying on about how "superior" I think I am.

What you fail to comprehend, for some reason, is that I never attack posters who treat others with respect or who don't represent very harmful and/or hateful ideas. I couldn't care less if some posters here disagree with me ideologically. Where I get upset is when some of you make sexist remarks or racist comments, or directly insult other posters personally, like blaming them directly for all of society's ills.

If this gives the impression of me "feeling superior," then so be it. I wouldn't expect a bunch of knuckleheads like yourselves to understand this anyhow.

I know await 1972's next post about how I'm such an arrogant person for unfairly criticizing Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...

You can try to "justify" it how ever makes you feel best.....Once again......thanks from all us inferior intellects.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#423
#423
volprof said:
You sound like 1972. He's always carrying on about how "superior" I think I am.

What you fail to comprehend, for some reason, is that I never attack posters who treat others with respect or who don't represent very harmful and/or hateful ideas. I couldn't care less if some posters here disagree with me ideologically. Where I get upset is when some of you make sexist remarks or racist comments, or directly insult other posters personally, like blaming them directly for all of society's ills.

If this gives the impression of me "feeling superior," then so be it. I wouldn't expect a bunch of knuckleheads like yourselves to understand this anyhow.
I know await 1972's next post about how I'm such an arrogant person for unfairly criticizing Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is the only one that could possibly be correct, right? So obviously it is hard to comprehend why anyone could think you are arrogant and condescending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#425
#425
SpaceCoastVol said:
So your position is that this is the ultimate solution then? Completely bullet proof. No loopholes, and no way out for the businesses that do not choose to operate their business in that manner. Sounds like a nanny state know-it-all government to me, and that scares the hell out of me. All the rest of your post concerning being relegated to dustbins of history, and the government forcing these kinds of issues will save them money is pure arrogance. And your continued insistence on the classism/sexism argument is tiresome and weak. My position is not that at all. The market will decide. Every potential employee negotiates or is told the benefit package they will be offered. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. It used to be a free country.
Click to expand...

But the market doesn't decide. The market is often a myth. If the free functioning market as a panacea was more than myth, the nineteenth century would have been a triumph. As it was, the nineteenth century was one long, giant experiment in how the free market as moral is a myth.

You're going to get your undies in a wad over paid maternity leave? Really? Like you're somehow loosing some of your freedoms? Like I told tums, if you want your darned precious anarchist freedom, go move to the Alaskan wilderness. The rest of us who live in the real world have a society to run. We're the only nation on Earth, along with Papua New Guinea and Lesotho, that doesn't offer paid maternity leave, and it is costing us money everyday.

As I said, the dustbin, it awaits. That or the Alaskan wilderness, where you don't have to worry about cooperating with others, taxes, or anything but your food supply and shelter.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top