The faces behind the living wage movement

Post Reply New Topic

From the Sacramento News & Review, a leftist weekly newspaper:

https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/s ... d=16697463

If I was still on the survival forum, I could post this, grab popcorn, and watch Angry White Men tear the article to shreds. But since I got the boot, I'm posting it here.

First off, I have to question Ms. Dias's life choices. She's 37 and can't feed herself working full time at Burger Krap, and now she's pregnant too? What was she thinking, for starters? Where's the baby daddy, why isn't he contributing? Is Ms. Dias aware that pregnancy in older women (and at 37, she's just under the line where a woman is unlikely to get naturally preggers at all) is a risk factor for various birth defects, including down syndrome and autism? What will she do if she finds herself caring for a severely disabled child?

How will she afford the apartment she needs to house her and the kid, if she can't afford her current place, which is apparently a room in one of Arden Arcade District's zillions of rundown 1950s tract homes? How will she feed the baby? How will she feed a 13 year old boy? (We all know that early teen boys can eat a LOT.) If it's a girl, has she considered extra expenses like makeup and clothes? There is so much fail here that it's hard to know where to start.

Also, I feel for the small business owners barely hanging on who will suddenly have to pay 33% more in wages. I know that inflation sucks, and some people end up the losers (like the preschool teacher, yeah I would want to trust my kids to a woman making $11/hr (/sarcasm)). But simply raising wages will only make everybody else raise prices, and now everybody is back to square one.

Amen.

I know it sounds heartless, but my dad refused to marry his fiancee until AFTER he had a job that enabled him to provide for a family.

The US courts say reproduction is a right, but it should be conditioned on being able to support your kid(s) without needing state assistance. It's irresponsible to expect someone else to pay for your kids when you were indigent before becoming pregnant.

So many jobs in the USA are not intended to provide a living wage. Teens and retirees make up the bulk of their workforce. Sadly, these jobs are more and more all that's left for the majority of the workforce, but that's a different issue to tackle.

People are supposed to do these jobs as a way of proving their ability to be good workers while they strive to better opportunities, not stay there and make a career of it (in which case, you'd go into management which pays a lot better).

Why is there never anyone demanding a lower cost of living, instead of a higher minimum wage? It's not like we're unable to provide low cost quality housing that have no utility bills (praise the Lord for sunshine and rain!). Ok, so *legally* we can't, thanks to zoning and other regulations. But there's nothing *technically* stopping us.

Food is much the same. The bulk price of corn is far lower than the price of corn after it's been processed into flour and baked into bread. Why? It's probably related to the reason that farmers here get paid about 20% of the price that lamb goes for in the shops - the Lord your Gov has declared thou shalt not violate any of Their divine regulations.

Clothing - 1.8% of the price of cheap clothing goes to the people who actually make it, and shipping costs are very, very low. Where's the hold up? That's not even getting into the high probability that those jobs will be automated away pretty soon...

Which is, really, the heart of the matter. A higher minimum wage is a boon for me, because I think I can automate their jobs - which will put me in high demand among their (former) employers. Rather than demanding such, then, they should demand that the government step aside and let the cost of production of the basics of life - shelter, energy, water, food, clothing - fall to a much lower level.

1. If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em.

2. Raise wages and the employers having to pay those higher wages will pass on the added expense to the customer. Can you say inflation?
What good is a higher income that comes with a higher cost of living?

We likely need a "multi tier" minimum wage. You can't pay $15/hour to people doing a task any common idiot could do. It's just not worth it. Still, you have people who are forced to have college degrees just to be considered for jobs not paying even $10/hour.

A reasonably skilled person should be earning enough on one 40-hour-per-week job to support a family of four on a modest lifestyle. That's what minimum wage was supposed to do, but now, we've so accepted the "dual income household" model that employers have gotten away with lower wages for all.

The "global economy" doesn't help either. We can't pay Americans what they pay in India or Pakistan...the cost of living is completely different.

I agree that wage inflation is a vicious circle and I'm deeply considering one thing.

I'd work it the other way just by looking at what percentage of income things take up. I'm guessing that housing is a huge portion of that and in most cases, tapping the cost of shelter back within 25% of income could be doable either with more studios or dorm-sized arrangements for people who are working in industries where the get-ahead money just isn't there otherwise and similarly for people making $30k per year already and timid about buying a house one might consider that we've been building these two story brick edifices with 3,000+ sq feet as it everyone could afford them and I'm thinking at some given point the housing market needs to pull back and scale down.

I'm noticing the generations around and later than me tend to think practical in that they'd rather have money for vacations than be strapped to more house than they could afford. If there are a lot more single people out there trying to make a go of it, instead of them shelling out an unhealthy portion of their income on rent or mortgage I really think we need to create a market strata - kind of like the mini-house nation - of houses that are in the $40K to $80K range and not for being old or trashed but for being scaled back in size (pretty much for houses what a smart-car is for vehicles). That would similarly have an effect on rental demands and cause an adjustment in that industry.

What fuels the economy is disposable income. If we just raise wages we're not giving people disposable income for very long as you pointed out. If we find a way to back out significant portions of our cost of living - that I think would take a significant bite out of the number of people needing government assistance on things like food and health care.

California and some of the coastal states are their own situation where as the 'place to be' they're super-expensive, still I think the same approach would better the situation there rather than worsen it.

The drive to procreate is one of the strongest drives there is in life. It's one of the sad tragedies of modern life that the stupid humans have to weigh things like jobs and finances as if these things are more important than bringing a being into the world.

Anyway, she's making enough to feed a child, just not lavishly. As far as Burger King, you take what you can get. Sometimes it's difficult to get out of jobs that you're stuck in.

It is a sad state of affairs indeed if someone can work full time and still be unable to feed them-selves...to me it looks like it might be necessary to raise wages, if this is an ongoing problem. Typically getting a job is not seen as a negative life choices....its really none of my business how or why this person got pregnant but I kind of doubt their plan was to be in a position they cannot feed them-self and have a child with plans to be unable to care for it.

A living wage is kind of nessisary....if people cannot make enough to live on, where would that leave society? Of course inflation is not the solution, but neither is the mindset of 'well some people will have to be the losers, that is just how it is so the rest of us can live comfortably'. Also why the snarky attitude at under-paid teachers? I feel for the people who are barely scraping by even when they are working hard a little more than I feel for corporations like say Burger King...if they had to pay all their full time employees a living wage.

You make it sound as though pregnancy is always planned for....sure if a guy has sex before marriage or a one night stand or any number of instances they may have sex before such time as being married they aren't going to get pregnant...for females its a little bit more complicated and birth control does not always work, so its not unheard of for females in no position to have a child getting pregnant. Some of these women choose abortions....except then a lot of right wingers gotta raise a big stink about that...they don't want the poor to reproduce, yet if someone who feels they cannot care for a child decides to abort then they want to ban that. Sure its fair to encourage people to only have children if in a position they can for sure provide for them independently....but then don't try to sabatoge the options that exist when an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy happens, hell some conservatives go as far as wanting to ban birth control....can't have it both ways.

Also though lots of people who where stable at the time of having kids, or getting pregnant....have had bad luck or circumstances to throw a lot of crap their way. Its not like every struggling family started because two people without proper resources to care for kids got together.....maybe they could at the time. Also some people may figure their budget would be plenty for a child....might mis-calculate, or the child might have health issues that bring in more expenses....there are just too many factors to point fingers at all poor/financially struggling parents for being 'irresponsible' when that may not be true. Also yes ideally people ought not have children if they cannot provide for them....but trying to legislate that could get very tricky. Things like being educated about sex and birth control and what it means to be a parent are helpful....but then you have fundalmentalist conservative christians trying to undermine efforts to teach people to be responsible with sex and use birth control or a morning after pill and things like that.

I mean of course this is not everyone of conservative leanings but if I am understanding correctly it could be said the right wants people to avoid having children they cannot care for....yet then oppose birth control, morning after pills and even early term abortions before the embroyo turns into a proper fetus. Basically if you have sex expect kids, and don't have sex if you cannot take care of kids because any methods to prevent it resulting in pregnancy are immoral?

I say its fine to encourage people to only have children if they have reason to believe they can provide and care for them, and not to if they cannot. But if that is to be heavily encouraged don't turn around and restrict access to things like birth control. I remember back in college a speaker came to talk about how they believe birth control is immoral and wanted legislation passed to ban/limit it more...just seems contradictory, does the right want people to have babies regardless...or does it want to allow the option of sex without pregnancy so less of these wayward children without parents with the resources to care for them are born?

^this....that is a refreshing perspective/idea, and probably would in turn be more effective than raising the minimum wage. I mean from what I can tell they have repeatedly 'raised the minimum wage' and it never seems to make any difference, perhaps that would be a better approach...the how would need to be figured out though.

Yes we can have it both ways. People can simply stick to having sex in ways that do not lead to pregnancy except when they want to reproduce. This would obviate the need for both birth control and abortion.

But any sex that isn't penis in vagina is wrong and immoral so back to no sex at all. I think I'll have 10 kids I can't pay for just to spite the extreme right.

Ok and what is a reliable way to have sex that does not lead to pregnancy without using some kind of birth control/contreceptives? whether it be as simple as a condom or something more? You are never going to eradicate all cases of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies from happening so best to have options for when that takes place......as well as more reliable means of helping to prevent it in the first place....aside from the abstaining from sex till ready to have kids which most people are never going to do.

You can't have it both ways and expect it not to backfire...having access to birth control pills, condoms and the morning after pill would do a better job of stopping any need for abortions....but even then there will still be times those means don't prevent it, or cases where there is a problem with the mother or embryo/fetus's health that makes it necessary.

While I don't agree with the first part, I am in total agreement with your second point. The fact is, if people throughout history had refrained from having kids just because they were poor, then probably almost none of us would be here.

well was only being sarcastic. thats what the super christians anti abortions would say. so was wondering since all other sex is wrong to them, and to say just don't do piv sex do other sex, I was wondering what he meant o.O