Trolling at workFollow

I also fell out of a white ******, so I can't use that. As for Government assistance, we didn't get any. It may have something to do with me being close to 50 and maybe things were different back then, but I'd say it's primarily because we lived in the foothills of Georgia.

When I say "dirt poor", I mean hillbillies. We had a massive garden and hogs and chickens and goats and sh*t. We didn't need food stamps. Folks in inner cities would be a different story though. Can't exactly raise crops and livestock in the concrete jungle of the Bronx.

I agree with you about jobs, but you may not like my solution, as it involves the Government. I say the answer lies in revamping our educational system.

My ( perhaps idiot) view is we should teach everyone the basic 3 R's through elementary and middle school. They should be able to balance a check book and comprehend a mortgage contract. After that we should focus on the child's actual aptitude(s). Identify, refine, hone and polish what they're naturally good at.

If a child excels in Math, don't waste time with some arbitrary "must have 5 years of English". Why have them waste time on Lord Byron ? We could polish that Math ability for the next four years and they'd enter college way ahead of the game.

Along with this, I say bring back shop class. If the kid sucks at Math but shows incredible aptitude for welding, why destroy his/her GPA forcing quadratic equations down their throats when we could be building a valuable, marketable skill? Four years of perfecting welding and they'd hit the job market more than ready to break free of poverty.

That's my solution anyway, or at least a start.


Edited, Dec 20th 2013 10:14pm by CoalHeart

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Uh... That was my analogy. So we're agreed that people don't pay more for something if they don't have to, and that includes wages for employees. Great! Progress.

Let me break down what just happened. I made a comment that employers will pay what they can get away with. You misinterpreted what I said and made a counter. You then said in the same post that I had a contradiction in thought when reading another comment. I clarified that what I said was not a contradiction, but both comments support the notion that employers will pay what they can get away with, using your analogy. You respond saying that 'twas your analogy and implied that I was making progress in understanding YOUR claim, even though I said it first.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

No. I've said this twice now. You even quoted me and quoted me asking if you'd actually read it the first time.

I'm arguing that people are more likely to accept a lower wage for the same job if they are receiving additional financial assistance than if they are not. What part of this is confusing to you? You need to earn $1000/month to scrape by. You fill out an application for a job. Your potential employer tells you that he'll pay you $800/month. If you're currently receiving $200/month in food stamps (for example), you'll take the job because it fulfills your earnings requirements. If you are *not* receiving any government assistance, you'll have to take the job because if you don't, the guy who is will.

Think more, type less. Read this a couple of times if you have to. In order to blame the government assistance for enabling low wage paying jobs, you would have to argue that people turned down better paying jobs in order to receive government assistance. That is, unless, you are also advocating that a person would NOT work the same job without the government benefits. That is just as asinine, as minimum wage is better than nothing.
Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

The point is that the wages for that job are set at $800/month because there are sufficient workers in the market for whom that's a sufficient wage and they wont demand higher. This means that those for whom it isn't a sufficient wage are screwed. Get it? If there was zero financial assistance being provided to anyone looking for that job, the job would pay $1000/month. And I get that this looks at first glance like I'm saying that people would turn down that job, but that's not really how it would work. The market force of people looking for jobs that pay at least $1000/month will force the employer (who presumably needs someone to fill that job slot) to raise his pay to meet that need.

The larger point is that the market will adjust to this and a typical person looking for a job wont actually be forced to choose not to take the job that doesn't pay him enough, because the job will simply naturally be valued at a reasonable wage that will fill his needs. Your argument is like insisting that food prices will rise without end because people have to eat. Clearly, they don't though. Some force prevents food buyers from having to make a choice between starvation and paying more than they can afford for food. And guess what? They don't have to make that choice. The market forces exist naturally and keep food prices down at an affordable level.

Same deal here. Just as you don't have to run around town refusing to pay $100 for a loaf of bread (and going hungry because of that choice), the potential employee doesn't have to run around refusing to work for low wages (and going without sufficient income because of that choice). The market will adjust those things without you physically having to run around suffering because of it. What's bizarre is that we see this market effect working all around us every single day and yet some people have built entire socio-political agendas around the assumption that it wont happen.

.......

Nope. Not even remotely close to what I've been arguing. It's amusing though how no matter how many times I keep saying that's not it, you keep returning to that assumption. You've somehow fallen into this trap of assuming that no one will ever pay a higher wage unless they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart or are forced to by some government action. The fact is that there are market forces outside those which force employers to pay higher wages. We don't need the government to make this happen.

If what you said were true, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the corporations would raise the wages themselves to meet the demand now.
Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

No. You apparently don't understand what I'm saying because you keep responding to me in nonsensical ways.

First off, I'm not talking just about government assistance. I'm talking about the wage effect when there are participants in the labor market who are receiving any sort of financial assistance. This includes dependents btw. It's really not speculation (or should not be one). It should be completely obvious that if you are competing for a job against someone who doesn't need as much money as you do, you'll lose (losing being defined as having to take lower pay than you need). Everything else being the same, the fact that someone is getting $X/month in financial assistance means that their personal wage "floor" is lower by that exact amount.

Secondly, you're still missing the point. Your (potential) boss doesn't care if you have 5 kids, a spouse, and a pile of debt, but you do. Those facts will push you to obtain employment that will pay for your needs. And the degree to which that is "typical" of the labor force will determine to what degree that need does apply pressure on wages in the market. And guess what? Businesses (and especially "corporations") do raise wages to meet relative cost of living demands. If that wasn't true, and the only thing keeping wages up was minimum wage, then everyone would earn minimum wage.

What you mean to say is that it doesn't always increase to meet the demand of every single individual's needs in the labor market. That is true. But is not necessarily a flaw, nor should we chuck out the whole system because there are some exceptions where the rule doesn't generate a good outcome. I'd say someone with 5 kids and no ability to demand a sufficient wage to support them perhaps shouldn't have had those 5 kids in the first place. Wouldn't you agree?

......

Yes. Duh. I've been saying that all along. See, the problem isn't that you and I disagree with this, but that you think that the only reason an employer would pay more than minimum wage is if the government forces them to (ie: raises that minimum). That's where I disagree with you, and at the risk of repeating myself, the proof that I'm right is in the fact that most people make more than minimum wage. An overwhelming majority of workers do. If you were correct, most people would make minimum wage, with perhaps a small number of super valuable people earning more.

Employers pay higher wages and provide better benefits to attract better employees, not to meet the relative cost of living demands or complement any finances. Every offer is to attract employees, reduce the turn over ratio and ultimately save and/or earn money for the business, not you.
Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Uh... I was saying what would happen if we changed things, not how they are now. In jobs outside the gravity well of minimum wage laws and financial assistance, people who do tasks which require more skill or experience tend to get paid more than those who perform simpler tasks. But, as you just confirmed, in low wage and/or entry level jobs in our current workforce (that's inside the gravity well I spoke of), this doesn't tend to happen. The guy working the register (which presumably requires more skill and isn't something you put people on the first day) doesn't earn appreciably more than the guy who just learned how to operate the fryolater.

There's a host of reasons for this, but the most important point is that it's not normal and it shouldn't happen that way. We cause it to happen because we've created an environment where all workers within that gravity well range are considered interchangeable and their wages reflect it. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that upward mobility at the low end of the wage scale is flattened. The guy working the register *should* earn more than the guy working the fryolater. And in higher paying jobs (even just marginally higher paying), the equivalent situation does happen. All the time.

Think more, type less..... What you are saying is false now and then. Fast food wouldn't fundamentally change their pay scale due to the removal of minimum wage. You might as well argue that the removal of a minimum wage would put workers on a salary with paid vacations! That's nonsense. The register doesn't take any more skill than the grill and people start off on the register on their first day all of the time. Furthermore, no one just learns how to do fries, so that comparison wouldn't exist. Outside of managerial/maintenance roles, the only other factors would be years of employment and possibly experience. The employer would create their own "minimal/cap wage" and start everyone there. They wouldn't start paying register workers more if they were able to pay them the same wages as the grill worker. That is why I asked if you ever worked at fast food, because you are creating an environment that contradicts reality.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

No, it doesn't. In precisely the same way that a "maximum loaf cost" law isn't required to prevent bread from costing $100/loaf. You've been taught this false belief your entire life, but it is really false. We don't need a minimum wage, and it's quite arguable that minimum wage laws contribute more to causing and perpetuating poverty than they help anyone at all.

History is not on your side. Are you saying that illegal immigrants work for the same prices as citizens? Are you saying that U.S slaves received equitable pay for their work? What you are implying goes against the purpose of a business. Your bread analogy isn't comparable because you are comparing time with money. It is very possible not to have $100, but be able to supply time equivalent to $100.
Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Sure. And that does happen. But there's a constant flow of new/young workers entering the labor market, and they tend to have lower financial needs than everyone else who's already in the market. Put another way, every single year you work, your financial needs increase relative to this years crop of new workers. This isn't something you can legislate away. The only way to offset that is with upward mobility. You need to maximize the odds that the longer someone is in the labor market the more valuable their labor will be. My argument is that financial assistance retards that upward mobility at the lower income ranges, which is precisely where it is needed the most. You need to be able to have a clear market advantage against the teen who just entered the market this year. But the way our system is rigged, it makes it far more likely that unless you've managed to get out of those entry level industries entirely, your going to be viewed identically and have to constantly compete with their lower financial needs (and lose, as I mentioned earlier).

That's how people get sucked into poverty for their entire lives.

If by new/young employees, you mean teenagers living under the support of their parents, then yes. Else, a person has MUCH more need for finances starting off than a person who has already been in the market. How does it ****** upward mobility unless again, you're implying that they are turning down better paying jobs? I'm not denying that some people purposely stay at low paying jobs with no motivation to move up, (I've worked with them), but that isn't at fault from financial assistance.
Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Sigh... You completely missed the point of that example. The average person wont do it just because he has the money. The average person will buy the $5 buns if they are sufficiently better buns to justify the extra cost. I think your hangup is that you've taken the example too literally. What will actually happen is that there will be $2 buns, and $2.50 buns, and $3.00 buns, and $3.50 buns, etc, on up to $5. And based on the quality of the buns and the desire any given consumer has for higher quality buns, different consumers will purchase different buns. Similarly, in a free market, employers will pay very little for labor which gains them very little, and pay a bit more for labor which is more valuable to them, and a little more for the next step in value, etc.

The employer doesn't pay more for labor because he has the money, so the comparison you're trying to make doesn't work. The employer pays more because the labor is worth more to him. Just as a consumer will pay more for a higher quality bun. Is this really a hard concept to grasp? Again, if that wasn't true, there wouldn't be $5 buns for sale in the grocery store. They'd all be priced at the lowest level. But that's not true, is it? There's a wide variety of products in the store, for a wide variety of prices. Your argument basically rests on the assumption that no one will pay more than the minimum priced version of something. But that isn't true, is it?

The fact that consumers absolutely do choose to pay more for a better product means that employers will pay more for a more skilled/experienced employee. That's the analogy. You don't buy the higher priced brand because you have more money, or because you feel like helping out the store owner. You buy it because you believe its worth the extra cost. That's the market force which forces employers to pay their employees more money even in the absence of a wage law mandating it.

Think more, type less.....Stop assuming that people don't understand you. What you said was my point. Employers will pay based on what the employer thinks the labor is worth. That worth will cap out at low wages as long as quality people accept it. There is no incentive to pay a grill worker $15 an hour, if you can get just as quality workers for $7.50.

I know you may find this shocking, but my parents weren't liars. Shocking concept, I know, but yeah, folks used to work hard and pull their own weight and deal with their lot in life without blaming others and begging for a hand out. Many of us still do.

Also, in the name of not offending anyone on Government assistance. I think it's a different World now. Back then we grew/raised our own food. My grandfather built our house, so we didn't need subsidized housing.

You can't really do that in today's World. Well, maybe you can in some middle of nowhere places, but most folks can't.

Back to your assistance thing Smash, what "manna from heaven, free money to spend as you please, program" did my obviously stupid parents fail to sign up for?


Edited, Dec 21st 2013 1:33pm by CoalHeart

Some folks still live that way. Think one of them just got suspended for running his mouth.

Not really that hard, ya just gotta be in the mood.

So, if I'm getting this right, it's the government assistance that keeps people from trying to get better paying jobs? Is that what one of the arguments is?

Ok, most of you know how this year went for me. Husband out of work for most of this last year. A stroke, brain surgery and toe amputations will do that to you. We held off as long as we could, but I just didn't make enough to pay all the bills and before all this happened, he wasn't on my insurance. So after he lost his original job, then the second job and our savings ran out, we got on assistance. Food stamps and Medicare for all his medical issues and trips to the ER for seizures. Good times.

Flash forward to these last few weeks. Even though we were getting those SWEET food stamps, I got out there and found a better paying job. I've been there for three weeks now. And my husband is finally almost back to normal, meaning we're pretty sure he can hold down a job now without passing out or needing a hospital visit. He got hired just this past week. The pay isn't great. But it's better than nothing. But you know what? He kept looking, in SPITE of those amazing benefits and we think he found a better paying job! We're pretty sure they'll be calling him next week to formally offer it.

So, while there may be exceptions, most people (or demographics, or whatever the stupid argument is) will not just accept any old job and any old pay just because Uncle Sam is buying their hot dog buns for them. Most of us really want to leave that behind, make a decent wage and live a decent life. Silly, I know.

Seconded. You all deserve a break right about now.

That is Gbaji's argument. As long as there is some form of financial assistance or government regulations (i.e., minimum wages, labor laws, etc.), people will be bound to a life of mediocrity.

Oops! You're right, I didn't even catch that. Us hillbillies ain't knowd fer our spellin'.

I was neutral on the matter, but after rereading the quote, it does seem bogus.

Smash, I really don't have the patience to hold your hand and spoon feed common sense to you, so follow me slowly. Just because something is outside your personal experience doesn't make it absurd or untrue. Why you limit yourself is beyond me. You could listen and learn, but no, you just gotta blow everything to an absurd extreme and then attack that absurdity.

I simply related my life growing up in the North Georgia Mountains ( Southern Appalachia). Not sure how in the hell anyone with an IQ above 50 could interpret "Hillbilly" as Macon,GA, but you did. Google Hillbilly..dumbass.

You find it absurd because it's unlike anything you've personally known. The World isn't obligated to conform to your ignorance. You find my experience absurd? Well, I got some bad news for you sunshine. Are you sitting down? Not only did I grow up that way, people today, 40+ years later..ARE STILL LIVING THAT WAY!

Google Appalachian poverty. You ignorant fraud. You want to come across as a master of everything, but you'll never become that because you limit yourself by fabricating sh*t in your head based on what makes sense to you. Here's a free tip. Develop the balls to question your own beliefs.

Also, the hateful comments about my parents, folks you never knew is beyond hilarious...and sad. Don't cry though, maybe Santa bring you Choo-Choo train.

Edited, Dec 23rd 2013 5:07am by CoalHeart

Smash, I really don't have the patience to hold your hand and spoon feed common sense to you, so follow me slowly. Just because something is outside your personal experience doesn't make it absurd or untrue. Why you limit yourself is beyond me. You could listen and learn, but no, you just gotta blow everything to an absurd extreme and then attack that absurdity.

I simply related my life growing up in the North Georgia Mountains ( Southern Appalachia). Not sure how in the hell anyone with an IQ above 50 could interpret "Hillbilly" as Macon,GA, but you did. Google Hillbilly..dumbass.

You find it absurd because it's unlike anything you've personally known. The World isn't obligated to conform to your ignorance. You find my experience absurd? Well, I got some bad news for you sunshine. Are you sitting down? Not only did I grow up that way, people today, 40+ years later..ARE STILL LIVING THAT WAY!

Google Appalachian poverty. You ignorant fraud. You want to come across as a master of everything, but you'll never become that because you limit yourself by fabricating sh*t in your head based on what makes sense to you. Here's a free tip. Develop the balls to question your own beliefs.

Also, the hateful comments about my parents, folks you never knew is beyond hilarious...and sad. Don't cry though, maybe Santa bring you Choo-Choo train.


Hi, I made a mistake.

I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your parents had lied to you and that you were conveying something you believed to be true. Now I see that you are in fact, just fabricating a story. Not sure why you started, but you're now clearly in slash and burn defend your idiot lie at all costs mode. Good luck with that. I don't give a fuck about you or your parents. The jury is in, you are lying. All done now. Expect no further responses from me, feel free to continue to peddle your lies and garner...pity, I guess? I hope fills some of the empty hole that makes you unable to have a discussion without adding "my friend was an astronaut so I know all about that"