thegreekdog wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote: Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:BUT... given that he has over 30 years as a volunteer firefighter and that I have volunteered in floods, hurricanes and teaching first aid/CPR for free, I don't consider that a horrible taking of other people's money. I and my husband EACH contribute far more to this country than most people. (and that is without getting into numerous other things we do.. such as my husband spending many, many hours coaching and being an unofficial social worker to many young men in this community)
So let me get this straight.....because you and your husband have supposedly chosen to volunteer SOOOOO much, you now claim the right to demand through the government that other people give you money to support you? I thought volunteering meant that you gave up of your time and/or money, not something that gives you a blank check for future payments.
Uh.. no, but nice try at pretending to actually pay attention to opposition. "other people: are not supporting me, never have... and yes, contributing to society is a better measure of success than how much money is in your personal bank account. Claiming that you have the right to foist your morality onto everyone else, to decide that you get to decide that anyone without a degree doesn't deserve to make enough to just live is pretty stupid and well beyond selfish. That is my point. But.. you will ignore it and keep pretending the minimum wage debate is about me, even though I actually don't make minimum wage. (though I don't make a great wage).
The fact is that I don't demand anything... I give. Yet, you could care less about that. You think anyone opposing your ideas is a user and that anyone who is not meeting your idea of success is just not deserving, but you have never bothered to check and see if any of your ideas are correct. You just assume because things work for you, the system must work and anyone for whom it doesn't deserves whatever they get.
Oh, and in what universe do you think paying someone a minimum of $8.00 an hour is going to mean that people with degrees cannot earn more. They already do, for the most part!... as do people with other skills, some of which pay far more than a basic degree.
Player, the problem with this post is that you assume a lot of things about Night Strike. First, you assume that he doesn't give (whether through the government or otherwise).
No, I assume he is saying it doesn't matter, is irrelevant.. and it is not.
thegreekdog wrote:Second, you assume that he's in favor of people failing with no safety net, government provided or not government provided.
No, but he is stating both that he wants aid to poor cut, says repeatedly in various threads the the welfare system is being abused, etc, etc, etc,
He also sees no problem with people working for low wages... BUT then he also complains about having to support those people. These are not "assumptions" they are his arguments, voiced over and over. He certainly tries to claim that he can have each of those opinions, that they don't relate and that there is nothing incorrect about any of it. I disagree.
thegreekdog wrote:Third, you assume the minimum wage is $8.00 and that there are enough people making minimum wage to make a difference.
Not sure where you get THAT idea! The PA minimum wage is currently $7.35 an hour, the national minimum wage IS $7.25 an hour. Many other areas have higher minimum wages, but that is irrelevant. When I refer to $8.00, it is what I have said the national minimum wage should be
. One proposal out there under serious consideration is to make it $9.00, but I am sticking with $8.00 because it is what I have argued all along.
I refer to that figure because it is much, much more relevant to consider everyone making less than the proposed minimum wage than to worry about just those who are truly making the actual minimum right now. This is a big point I mentioned regarding your statistics, and but you just ignored the point and went on assuming that "only kids" get minimum wage. It is technically true if you look at ONLY those making the true minimum wage, but not true when you look at those making well below what it takes to live upon today. That last is the truly relevant figure.
thegreekdog wrote:There are not many people that are suggesting that people should be forced to live in abject poverty. This is a thread about minimum wage. This is a thread about the government doing something, not individuals doing something on their own.
No, its about whether these people are supported by your and MY tax dollars or are supported by the businesses for whom they work (unless there are extenuating circumstances requiring more than usual help, such as a disabled child ). Again, you and NS, BBS, etc all want to pretend this is just about what businesses want to pay, its not its also about whether we wind up having to support those workers because
they are getting such low wages.
thegreekdog wrote:All the volunteer work that you and your husband do is not government-provided, right? How do you know Night Strike isn't serving in a soup kitchen or volunteering dollars to non-profit organizations?
I hope he is, but its actually irrelevant, though I did rather fall into the trap he intended to set.
Here is the thing. He claims that demands for more payment equals "taking". Demands for more taxes is a kind of "theft" and demand that businesses pay more is also theft. I abjectly and completely disagree with that last. Paying workers too little to live upon is plain not OK. To me, it really doesn't matter if people are paid in food, housing and clothes , etc. OR are just paid a bigger check. It DOES matter if we taxpayers have to wind up supporting people becuase businesses are allowed to pretend they can get by with paying people wages that really are just a down payment on the support people need, so that those businesses can pretend they are taking a bigger profit.. (and, of course, complain about the taxes they are paying to, among other things support the abusive poor people
Here is the real point. My husband volunteers, risks his life to save other people's homes and lives becuase it is a job that needs to be done
. We all inherited a great gift in being born in this country with lots of wonderful services. Part of what we owe in return are taxes... part is owed in things we do for those around us. NS likes to pretend that all of that is supposed to just be volunteer, out of the "goodness of everyone's heart" and that that "goodness" will just somehow magically take care of everyone's needs. It doesn't work that way. If it did, we would not have the many rules we have, would not have welfare, would not have social security, etc. We have those things because individuals are not efficient enough at deciding where help should go and too often think that they have the right to just decide not to pay. Look at the protest, for example, when anyone proposes increasing charges for fire service... either increasing taxes or requiring a subscription, etc.
The FACT is that today, too many people just don't have time to volunteer. I sure don't have anything close to the time I did, Not since I started working 40 hours... and I don't have a serious commute, am only working 1 paid job. When they have the time, the sense of "owing" one's community is being replaced with the very ideas being voiced here.. that folks "get what they deserve", that "someone else" will take care of that. This is not an esoteric debate. Fire companies across the nation are losing members. The average age in my husband's department is 50! There are 4 firefighters under the age of 25-- that's it, and I might add that is actually more than in past years becuase one is the daughter of a chief, one is my stepson, and 2 are his friends!
You cannot have it both ways. Either we live in a country that supports its people or we live in a country with no taxes, no requirements....a nd well, I don't really see tons of people flocking there! Sometimes people might move parts of their business there, but they sure are not going to those places to live and raise families for long. They LIVE in the US where we have police, we have fire fighters (for now, anyway), we have decent roads and communication lines.. we have various services that people use. (not to mention a whole background of scientific research.. largely government funded).
PART of that mix is a minimum wage that actually provides a real living.
thegreekdog wrote:As to the rest, I've provided plenty of evidence and opportunities for you to respond. I've even, tongue-in-cheek, provided an example of available jobs for those looking to make more money. You need to get on the same page as at least Juan Bottom and realize what you've been duped into arguing about.
No. You haven't, actually. Meanwhile, you have presented a lot of data that was just plain not what you claimed.. like presenting figures on minimum wages that stated exactly what I said above, that just looking at minimum wage figures is irrelevant becuase it ONLY includes those who are making just the exact minimum, not everyone making less than what is proposed as the new minimum.