The faces behind the living wage movement

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, gotcha. Sarcasm often goes over my head.

The answer is simple...Keep your knees together. Nothing simpler than that. If you don't want the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, don't have sex. Humans aren't base animals. We can choose to resist our impulses to have sex.



This happens, yes, but another straw man argument.

Minimum wage jobs aren't created to provide a living wage to support a family. The issue is that we have destroyed the ability to create good jobs in the USA. It's not about raising the pay for jobs done by common idiots...it's about keeping the good jobs here and creating more of them.

Woooooow. Did you really just say sex is only for people rich enough to never be at risk of income loss?

I understand it's hard for a lot of businesses to raise wages to $15/hr. They'd need a miracle to cover the costs, like their customers suddenly having more money to spend (oh, wait...).

The solution to this problem is very simple:

1.) We need to go back on the gold standard.

B.) We need to kill all the poor people.

People - rich or poor - have never, ever just kept their knees together. It's against our biological wiring, and violates every American's right to the pursuit of happiness.

See the problem with that is even if a female does 'keep her legs together' there is still the possibility of rape. But that is not why that is a crap 'solution' it is a crap solution because for one not everyone goes by archaic moral codes that view sex as something only for re-production or sex before marriage as something immoral. People find sex pleasurable, there are ways to mostly prevent pregnancy besides 'never having sex' if you don't want kids which is actually much more practical.

How about if you do not want a kid keep your legs closed if you feel that its the best way to prevent unwanted birth, no ones stopping you abstaining from sex. However don't try to push that on all the other sex loving people who prefer their condoms and birth control pills, legislated morality like that is no good. I personally can think of a number of other things I enjoy more...but if I want to have sex I will yes even though I do not want kids and I will use means of preventing pregany aside from 'keeping my knees' closed what is this year 1815?

And how is the fact that many people have had kids while financially stable and then ended up in a worsening financial situation to the point they struggle to afford to take care of their and the kids needs a 'straw man' argument? Because it challenges the notion that not all families in poverty exist because the parents where just 'lazy' and 'irresponsible'? Seems like 'its a straw man argument' is just another way for people to attempt to dismiss perspectives they dislike or don't agree with.

Also you just come off a bit stuck up, with your assumption that low paying jobs are all done by 'common idiots' maybe next time you grab some fast food on the way somewhere, or otherwise get service from someone in a typically lower paying job you ought to really show your appreciation and explain how you're so much better than all the common idiots you get service from throughout the day. And what do you mean keep 'the good jobs' here, you honestly think we could just outsource all the 'bad jobs' and only have prestigious professional careers here? how the hell would that sustain the population? You make no bloody sense.

And surely we'll all lay down and die without a fight.....

On the subject of birth control - it's obvious that the exact same people who toss around slogans like "just keep your knees together," and "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" are the ones who either don't want the government to finance birth control for poor people, or who think birth control should be banned all together.

I honestly doubt I could actually physically go through with a pregnancy even if I did get pregnant I am usually borderline under-weight which means I hardly sustain myself which would be detrimental to the development of a fetus...not to mention I am sure my medications are not healthy for such a thing...especially the valium though I do not take it that often. But yes it is funny they expect people struggling financially to just fight every human urge and treat every pleasure as something that ought to be off limits to them...yet want to sabotage any attempts to allow them to indulge in things responsibly in such a way it does not create unwanted children or disproportionate prison sentences like in the case of non-violent drug offenses where the end result of imprisonment of them probably costs the state more than not having a war on drugs that more targets poor and minorities than the rich who are wealthy enough to make the law largely irrelevant to them since they can just buy their way out.

Anyone ever heard of not having sex? It's great! You don't have to deal with kids, or the stress that comes with a partner in life! Sure being alone sucks, but who cares?! Sure beats the loving embrace of a sexy female/man!
I'll take no kids any day for the chance to have my name in the history books as 'that guy?'!

Well, I am married, and have a kid. Don't knock it before you try it.

The problem is a lot of theses people simply aren't rational. They're operating from a position of prejudice and ignorance.

To them, poverty is an outward sign of inward moral defect (i.e. poor people are lazy and they want to mooch off the rest of us).

They also don't understand economics--things like the multiplier effect--so they construct these overly simplistic, "common sense" narratives that serve to confirm their biases (i.e. higher wages just result in higher prices, etc.).

People don't give a damn about what works or is the most efficient course of action if it clashes with their subjective notions of "what's right."

For example, there are about 100,000 chronically homeless people in the country. Most suffer from serious mental illness and substance abuse disorder. They cost the public about $60,000.00/year in emergency services, jail stays etc.

WE COULD put these people in permanent supportive housing for about $30,000.00/year, BUT most people refuse to consider or support housing for homeless people who are actively using alcohol or drugs.

They insist that "sobriety is the cost for getting assistance" in spite of the fact that it is nearly impossible for most of these folks to get sober while dealing with the stress of living on the streets.

As a result, nothing gets done and ignoring the problem costs us twice as much as dealing with it would (not to mention all the human suffering).

Not to mention they expect people in the difficult position of poverty to somehow cope with that stress, while living up to higher moral standards than everyone else so they can 'deserve' any assistance. Whether its with drugs, alcohol, sex or anything else that has to do with normal basic human behavior...psychology and sociology don't even have the answers as to why for thousands of years humans have sought mind altering substances, but the fact is it dates back pretty far, far enough to be an engrained human trait....yet the expect those struggling the most to magically have even more self control and desire to subscribe to archaic moral rules than your average financially stable individual who still might have a beer after work/or a long day. And even so much as treat themselves to a cup of coffee is seen as some luxary they ought to be ashamed they'd even think to have had one.

It is that sort of attitude that pisses me off....if one is struggling that means they should be beat down even more by various policies designed to control every aspect of their personal life and ensure they only have the bare minimum needed to survive and nothing more whatsoever until such time they just up and become middle class or above. Like people that love their 'freedom' but would be fine to see the 'poor' oppressed in a soviet-like manner...rather than be provided any financial or other help and support to get through their rough patch, or help them get by if they remain indefinitely unable to do that them-self which would actually be a lesser burden on society and better for everyone.

At least currently I can be on disability, which doesn't get me out of poverty...but at least gives me a little to work with without being scrutinized/monitered 24/7 as to everywhere I go, everything I do, everything I buy even if its just a 2.00 trinket at some thrift store and get food stamps without being told what exactly I can and cannot eat via some list of pre-approved 'poor people' food....as is I may have a chance to improve my situation eventually, maybe even become functional enough to work. If it became the heavily monitered kind of program that's more like probation than government aid I doubt i could say the same...I'd be ready to kill myself due to all the pressure.

^^^
Stay away from Kansas, as the place has become a Republican/libertarian wet dream, where poor people are accused of using their benefits to take cruises. No, I'm serious!

I certainly don't have it on my list of places to visit...not sure how benefits would be enough to take cruises. Though I saw some article on my facebook to do with banning using EBT cards at dispensaries...as far as I can tell it would be propaganda to try and make the industry look bad because most won't even accept a debit/credit card let alone an EBT card not to mention if you try to buy anything that's not food with the food stamps it doesn't go through. But yeah most have to take cash anyways because of some legal issues between the federal and state government.

So I have to kind of roll my eyes when I hear those kinds of claims of people using like food stamp benefits for cruises or marijuana...good luck. As for SSI disability income its for if you cannot work due to a disability...and leisure spending is fine in my state at least its explained quite clearly that it is for basic needs/living costs and whatever s left is your spending money. Not to mention you cannot even have more than 2,000 dollars in assets/savings or risk being kicked off so its not like you can really save a bunch of money to invest anyways so if anything spending it is encouraged. But yeah I have had people try to guilt me about things they don't like that I buy, when I am sure they would not tolerate someone getting so nosy about what they buy. As if because I have to depend on that crap income I should also have my spending dictated...well if legislation where to pass to virtually shove me into the corner even further I might bite back so to speak.