• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Paycheck To Paycheck workers

What is your current financial condition

  • I've always lived paycheck to paycheck

    Votes: 27 20.3%
  • I'm currently paycheck to paycheck, but its temporary

    Votes: 17 12.8%
  • I'm not paycheck to paycheck now, but I have been in the past

    Votes: 40 30.1%
  • I was paycheck to paycheck only when I first started my career

    Votes: 19 14.3%
  • I've never been paycheck to paycheck

    Votes: 17 12.8%
  • I'm rich, I don't need to work

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • On Planet X, we all get paid in goat vouchers

    Votes: 10 7.5%

  • Total voters
    133
  • Poll closed .
It's against the law.
Right. In my view, it's appropriate to sometimes regulate the market.

I disagree with minimum wage laws from an economics standpoint. And yes, people have ethics but I don't think that having government mandate "ethics" works.
How about from an ethical standpoint? Are you for any regulation? None? Science doesn't "know ethics" either, but it's important for scientists to use science in an ethical manner. Don't we need to regulate corporations to avoid more Enrons?

How high is too high? How deep is too deep?
I see it as a meaningless question.
No, we're talking about economics in the U.S. How deep is too deep is an abstract, meaningless question. How much of a gap between rich and poor in the U.S. is a meaningful, relevant question. Does it concern you that the gap is widening? Is that OK as long as the market is doing well? Why should some full time workers live below the poverty line, without health care, while Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton make many millions a year? I know that's how the market works, but is it ethical?
 
I'm trying to understand a point here....

People like RT and I, who have basic schooling and training in our professions with at least 20 years of experience, deserve to make less then the median because we are too lazy to go and find a more valuable skill set? RT is a long distance hauler, not everything gets moved automatically from place to place and I work in a medical office; triaging phone calls, assisting people with getting the medications they need, drawing blood, etc. Before that I worked on ambulances as a Paramedic as well as in ER's.


I guess our skills aren't very valuable by your standards since we make less then the median income.



Boo
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to understand a point here....

People like RT and I, who have basic schooling and training in our professions with at least 20 years of experience, deserve to make less then the median because we are too lazy to go and find a more valuable skill set? RT is a long distance hauler, not everything gets moves automatically from place to place and I work in a medical office; triaging phone calls, assisting people with getting the medications they need, drawing blood, etc. Before that I worked on ambulances as a Paramedic as well as in ER's.


I guess are skills aren't very valuable by your standards since we make less then the median income.



Boo
Yep, some people just deserve to be poor. Or, more accurately, some people believe that some people deserve to make less than a living wage, no matter how hard they work.
 
I guess are skills aren't very valuable by your standards since we make less then the median income.
This is the problem in my view. When I bring up issues like how much Paris Hilton makes compared to soldiers, people often say, "that's how the market works--Paris brings in money for her bosses" (or something like that). Yes, but is the market the most important thing? What if the market values rock stars and tv stars and pro athletes and porn stars much, much, much more than teachers and soldiers and cops? Isn't something wrong with that?

eta: And by the way, AFAIK no one here is talking about handouts for those that don't want to work. We're (at least I'm) talking about full time workers.
 
This is the problem in my view. When I bring up issues like how much Paris Hilton makes compared to soldiers, people often say, "that's how the market works--Paris brings in money for her bosses" (or something like that). Yes, but is the market the most important thing? What if the market values rock stars and tv stars and pro athletes and porn stars much, much, much more than teachers and soldiers and cops? Isn't something wrong with that?

eta: And by the way, AFAIK no one here is talking about handouts for those that don't want to work. We're (at least I'm) talking about full time workers.

I was pretty sure that we lived in a society... a country... not a market.

And, yeah, I'm talking about working folks, not people looking for a handout.
 
Why not try to be mature about it, instead of lashing out at the idea of fair wages?

You are the one stooping to insults in place of discussion, not I. How should I gauge your maturity?

Here's an idea: figure out what a living wage is, and make sure that everyone working a 40 hour week gets that. Why is that not an automatic in one of the world's richest countries?

Figuring out what constitutes a living wage would be problematic, but let's take that as a given. That still leaves two issues. The first is that not every job is worth a living wage. The second is that fundamentally capitalistic economy will correct itself in time.
 
That still leaves two issues. The first is that not every job is worth a living wage. The second is that fundamentally capitalistic economy will correct itself in time.

Both of your issues are wrong and frankly disturbing. You seem to be saying that some people deserve to live in poverty, even though they work full time jobs. You're also parroting my "free market" myth. The only think that unregulated capitalism does is transfer wealth to the wealthy and from everyone else.

So, since neither of your points is valid to any sort of society that decent people would want to live in, what else have you got?
 
Right. In my view, it's appropriate to sometimes regulate the market.


Of course, workplace safety, fraud, many places. Minimum benefits, minimum rates of pay? I disagree with that because those who cannot measure up to that standard of productivity are left out.


How about from an ethical standpoint? Are you for any regulation? None? Science doesn't "know ethics" either, but it's important for scientists to use science in an ethical manner. Don't we need to regulate corporations to avoid more Enrons?


Ethics, integrity, basic honest are valuable commodities in both employees and employers. And scientists.
But do I have an ethical requirement to pay employees significantly more than they are capable of producing? No.

Enron? Crooks are already legislated against.

No, we're talking about economics in the U.S. How deep is too deep is an abstract, meaningless question. How much of a gap between rich and poor in the U.S. is a meaningful, relevant question. Does it concern you that the gap is widening? Is that OK as long as the market is doing well? Why should some full time workers live below the poverty line, without health care, while Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton make many millions a year? I know that's how the market works, but is it ethical?


Which rich person's earnings do you object to and why?
Which poor person do you measure poverty with?

The poverty line is an arbitrary (and capricious) designation.

The market pays those who produce and that includes Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton. Is that ethical? By definition.
 
This is the problem in my view. When I bring up issues like how much Paris Hilton makes compared to soldiers, people often say, "that's how the market works--Paris brings in money for her bosses" (or something like that). Yes, but is the market the most important thing? What if the market values rock stars and tv stars and pro athletes and porn stars much, much, much more than teachers and soldiers and cops? Isn't something wrong with that?


Isn't something wrong with that? No. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

eta: And by the way, AFAIK no one here is talking about handouts for those that don't want to work. We're (at least I'm) talking about full time workers.


That's a cop-out when I can always hire two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker.
 
The market pays those who produce and that includes Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton. Is that ethical? By definition.

There's no such thing as "the market"... you've bought into that fraud as well, I see. :rolleyes:
 
That still leaves two issues. The first is that not every job is worth a living wage. The second is that fundamentally capitalistic economy will correct itself in time.


So who decides which jobs are worth a living wage? Who decides what workers get those jobs and don't deserve to earn a living wage?





Boo
 
We're living paycheck to paycheck at the moment, which is largely because a number of incidents hit at the same time, causing us to go through our meager savings in a few weeks. Replacing two windows on the van, then having the transmission blow and take the engine with it has already cost us $800, with a potential $6500 for the engine work... which we really can't afford. Prior to that, one of our incomes was stalled while a company bought out the company that our roommate worked for; for almost a month, no one got paid, so we had to live partly on savings to cover that. When the savings ran out, there were still issues with how she was being paid - instead of direct deposit, she was handed a check, and because of the hours she works, she couldn't put it in the bank. Needless to say, several bills were auto-processed before she could get to the bank, resulting in several hundred in NSF fees.

On top of all that, the gas prices locally have jumped from an average of $1 per gallon to well over $3, and with both ladies working at least a half-hour away, that's a LOT of gas. Plus two kids in preschool (which means no bussing) 15 minutes away, and that's a huge cost in gas. We're filling a 15 gallon tank about every other day.

Thanks to increased fuel costs, our power bills are higher now than ever before, and we were already using every cost-saving trick we could.

We're diligent coupon and specials shoppers, and buy the cheapest foods we can get away with. We do eat out - about once a month - but usually at CiCi's, where the buffet for everyone works out to about $20 or so. But with several members of the household being on special diets, we're still spending a lot more than is comfortable.

Now, our budget (not taking into account the van issue) has us getting a savings back by mid-October (a small one), and if we wanted to lower our standard of living, we could get a much larger one, sure. But what could we cut out? Our phone line, cable, and internet are all on a bundle; we could trim the cable TV out, but the savings would be minimal. My son is virtual-schooled, and my wife is taking classes via internet at the local university, so we have to have decent internet access. Our cable phone line is also wired into the home security system, so that has to stay, too.

We are occasional drinkers - I think I buy a six-pack of beer once every other month. I smoke a pipe - and one ounce of tobacco lasts me about a month.

We still have the same TV we bought three years ago when our old one died (it had actual tuning knobs and a wooden cabinet!). My computer is about three years old, and I've hobbled together improvements in fatter times to keep it running. Their computer is newer, but cost all of $300 at Sam's Club, and is a piece of crap.

We were given a PS2 as a Christmas present one year. It's the only console we own. Likewise, there's two GameBoys - both presents.

The kids have two or three games for each system.

Both of the ladies are in management; one is working in the lowest-paid retail in the U.S., trying to earn a few years under her belt before moving on. The other makes fair money, but has very few benefits.

I stay at home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids. Day-care costs would be extremely prohibitive, and frankly we've had nothing but bad experiences with day care.

We've managed finally to get off of public assistance, except for Medicaid. That makes me happy!

But for now, it's paycheck to paycheck. If everything goes alright in the next few months, we'll be OK - but I still have that van to worry about. Especially since we'll still be paying for it until April 2009.

I wonder - could I get away with not paying it, since it's basically totalled? Of course, it'll mess up my credit, but what's worse - a black mark on your credit that will be gone in seven years, or two more years of paying $320 a month for a van that doesn't run, with an expired warranty?

This is just life for a lot of folks - no bling, no expensive toys, but always living hand-to-mouth. And when we do get up, even a little bit, something hits us and drags us back down.
 
Both of your issues are wrong and frankly disturbing. You seem to be saying that some people deserve to live in poverty, even though they work full time jobs. You're also parroting my "free market" myth. The only think that unregulated capitalism does is transfer wealth to the wealthy and from everyone else.

Those are lovely strawmen.

So, since neither of your points is valid to any sort of society that decent people would want to live in, what else have you got?

What evidence do you have that your approach would work?
 
As for income inequality, the market decides who gets rewarded, not me...

Why introduce ethics at all? The market knows no ethics only people do.

So... it doesn't bother you that a system that "knows no ethics" "decides who gets rewarded?" :boggled:

Of course, base pay does not include housing allowances, flight pay, combat pay, enlistment bonuses and a few other incentives to go with that free room and board, career training, medical care, and so forth.

Yeah, those big ol' softies...

Besides I can contract with a company in a third world country and let them pay their employees 10 cents a day. /facetious

No problem with ethics here... :rolleyes:

I disagree with minimum wage laws from an economics standpoint.
And yes, people have ethics but I don't think that having government mandate "ethics" works.

No, it might not "work," but it might at least establish a lowest-common-denominator for people who don't have a robustly developed sense of ethics.

The market pays those who produce and that includes Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton. Is that ethical? By definition.

But wait a minute, you just said that "The market knows no ethics..." Which is it?

...

To paraphrase: You keep using this word, ethics. I do not think it means what you think it means...
 
There's no such thing as "the market"... you've bought into that fraud as well, I see. :rolleyes:


The "market" is the superset of all people and companies that engage in the commercial exchange of goods and services.

Haven't you ever studied economics, even superficially? :boggled:
 
Nope. You can't just call reality a "strawman" because you don't like it.

The strawmen comment arose because you misrepresented my position. As for your version of reality, I ask again: What evidence do you have that your proposal should work?
 
The "market" is the superset of all people and companies that engage in the commercial exchange of goods and services.

Haven't you ever studied economics, even superficially? :boggled:

Yep. On paper and in real life. Funny how the two don't always match. Doubly sad how many people insist that the theories are right even in the face of reality, as though reality is somehow wrong when it contradicts someone's economic ideology.
 
The strawmen comment arose because you misrepresented my position.
if so, I apologize. Can you explain where my error was?

As for your version of reality, I ask again: What evidence do you have that your proposal should work?
Common sense, mixed with empathy and a whole mess of hope, combined with a realization that the current system is a complete failure.
 

Back
Top Bottom