Federal Minimum Wage

"Unskilled jobs are a classist myth used by the rich to justify poverty wages."


not everyone has an easy stable life like you have had.

and yeah, despite how you may perceive your struggles, the fact that you've gotten where you are is in no small part due to fortunate circumstances.

 

see, here any residential rental contract is considered on going after the original lease period. Rent can be raised within a certain percentage on an incumbent tenancy (1-3% generally).

does it occur to you that the reason for such "government fiats" is because without them property owners were taking unfair to extortive advantage?

 

Some undoubtedly were. But a landlord who charges exorbitant rents for crappy properties isn't going to be in the landlord business for long. They'd have to either lower rents or improve the property (which would justify a higher rent). See, this all comes down once again to short-term versus long-term thinking. Yeah, a landlord can get away with high rent for low properties for a while. Eventually they will wind up with no tenants willing to rent from them, and then the property will sit empty. Which means it will begin to degrade, since no-one is there maintaining it. Left long enough, you can expect first squatters, who will further damage it, and then ruin. And then the landlord has nothing to rent and no revenue stream, absent some kind of insurance fraud. Of course, some do that on purpose so that they can sell the property to a developer, as the land may itself be far more valuable than the structure. Which starts the cycle all over again.

Rent control almost guarantees that the property will not be properly maintained, as most landlords are going to want more profit and not more maintenance expenditures and will "cheap out" on upkeep, again due to short-term thinking.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/...ce-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/

Interesting read.

 

That seems logical, but it doesn't look like the reality I see as a renter. When demand far outstrips supply--which is the case in Southern Maine--landlords can essentially charge whatever they want because SOMEONE will take it (all the better if they get Section 8 assistance).

Landlords aren't the devil's foot soldiers by any means, but they do what they do to make money. If that means jacking up rents because they can, most undoubtedly will.

 

Story of San Francisco as well. While I don’t know southern Maine, at least around here that’s due to strict limits on height, zoning, and density that prevent much new housing from being built, and the most “progressive” pols are leading the fight to make sure it stays that way.

 

Can confirm. When I got thrown into the lot porter position at Acura, it was exhausting as fuck working 60 hrs a week for a position I didn't ask for and was tossed at me because of someone else's fuck up. I'd mostly sleep on my days off and it was truly more miserable there than any part of my time in the Navy, the March 2011 efforts includes.

Also, this.

In my city, no one is a straight hire for entry level jobs. Ya gotta sign up through a temp agency more most jobs worth having.

 

Uh, fix who you're quoting, Anna

 

I'm sure the thought that people in minimum-wage jobs are only there because they lack ambition is very pleasing to some people. It's more satisfying to believe that you have what you have because you're Just So Gosh-Darn Smart and Hard-Working than to believe it has anything to do with circumstance.

There's a reason the idea of America as a pure meritocracy is one of our most cherished myths.

But it isn't borne out by logic. Lately I've been thinking about getting a master's degree. The only reason I'm able to contemplate that now is that I'm financially secure with a job that isn't physically exhausting, has a both predictable and flexible schedule, and pays the bills by itself without me needing to scramble for side work. (I do still do side work, but I don't have to.) When your circumstances are better, your ability to improve them is better as well.

 

Yeah... but see... what to you is a feature (social mobility through merit/work) is a bug to conservatives.

I went to HS in Georgia right when the HOPE Scholarship (free college tuition if you had a B average overall and B averages in both Math and English) kicked in and there were lots of (rich white) people that were pissed about it.

The one convo that stuck out most to me was listening to a parent say “Now that just anyone can go to [the University of] Georgia the admission standards are just crazy. We’re both alumni and our kid had to go to Auburn because of it.”

Considering my parents went to Auburn and that is where I was going, I found the statement BS on multiple levels.

But yeah. You see this sentiment, while not so nakedly expressed, out there a lot when it comes to education. Anytime someone talks about a degree being devalued because now just anyone can get it, that’s economic/social gatekeeing. Unless the graduation standards have changed then the education is just as valuable. But it was never really about the education. It was the social signifier of the piece of paper.

And the cons live for that shit. The entire philosophy is built on maintaining the social status quo.

 

If that were so there would be MASSIVE wage increases in the lower half (at least) of wage earners and substantial decreases among executive.

The claim here, as I've previously noted, is that $15 is the bare minimum everywhere, not that it is sufficient in the more expensive areas (which SHOULD have state/local laws raising it further)

If conservative-run states were actually interested in anything but maximizing profit and tended to their own people then you wouldn't need Federal rules.

 

Came here to post this. The escalator that picks up after 2025 is an unexpected but excellent component.

 

I don't think as part of this discussion there is any significant support for forcing companies to employ people they don't have any need for. So if minimum wages wise and people are still able to find work at that cost then it seems to suggest that the labor is at least valued by the companies at that level, it's just that they like anyone else will pay less if they can.

 

Wonder how many ‘pro-life’ folks will give a fuck?

 

"Something something not my problem something something keep your legs closed blah blah blah."

 

Hey, being pro-life just means a woman has to sacrifice her body and life for 9 months, suggesting anyone interfere with the Free Market™ is taking things too far.

 

Ironic. I am one of "the children born to poor people" and thanks to my hard work, a lot of "people born into wealth and privilege" answer to me.

 

Your hard work? Please, enlighten us what steps you took to become such a success.

 

I wonder if you really are.

I used to think I was, because my family was poor compared to those around us. But I have a different perspective now.

Never discriminated against (neither I nor my parents) because of the color of my skin: check.
Always had a house with electricity and running water: check.
Always had a car: check.
Never had to go without meals for lack of money: check.
Always had at least one pair of shoes: check.
Attended good quality schools: check.
Never had to fear neighbors or police due to my family's political or religious leanings: check.

The list could go on, but I think I've made my point: I was born into privilege. I bet you were, too.

 

Never discriminated against (neither I nor my parents) because of the color of my skin: False. Happened frequently. I was usually one of the only white kids in my area, which means I got beat up a lot with no one to have my back.
Always had a house with electricity and running water: Not true. Didn't even always have a house.
Always had a car: No.
Never had to go without meals for lack of money: Eh. Wording is suspicious. If we never lacked meals it was only because of others' charity.
Always had at least one pair of shoes: Not true.
Attended good quality schools: Nope.
Never had to fear neighbors or police due to my family's political or religious leanings: This doesn't have anything to do with growing up poor.

Sorry to bust your myth, Async. There really were poor white people in the United States, believe it or not.

 

but you didn't tell us what you did that you did all on your own hard work that could not also be contributed to "right place right time"

 

I still have my doubts. Yes, there are poor people in the States. Truly poor people. Even among whites. Living in the streets and surviving only by begging. But I'm not sure if you and I are talking about the same thing.

You say you were "discriminated against" because of the color of your skin. Do you just mean others picked on you, or are you saying that your family was refused jobs, the right to vote, or police protection? It's not even close to the same thing.

You say you didn't always have a house. Does that mean you lived in the street, or are you just nitpicking on the meaning of the word "house" because you lived in an appartment or a mobile home or something? (I did that; too. I just grouped all that together under "house".)

And if you think having your neighbors and/or police turning on you because of your religious or political leanings doesn't have anything to do with poor, then you have a very narrow view of poor, defined only in terms of dollars.

Have you actually spent time in the Third World? It was only when I did that that I realized that I was wrong in thinking I "grew up poor". The man who runs one of the orphanages I helped found in Madagascar had a dream when he was a child: that one day he would be so rich he could have shoes. When you say you "didn't always have shoes", is that what you are talking about? I have seen half-naked children picking through garbage for food, while people are defecating right nearby. Have you ever done that? There are people who live in fear, who can't have a regular job, because they are not the right religion, or because they don't side with the regime. Do you really think that doesn't have anything to do with poverty? I met a man in Madagascar who had lost four children to malaria, because he couldn't afford to buy mosquita nets for everyone. I paid for them out of my pocket money; it cost about $5. Is that what you grew up with?

Unless you have a lot more experience in the Third World than you have ever given me reason to believe, I don't think you have enough of a perspective of what it really means to "grow up poor".

 

Well, my days of taking you seriously have now formally concluded.

Cheers.

 

^ Can't answer it, huh? So all you can do is call it stupid and be insulting?

I would suggest you review Galations 5:22 and James 3:17.

 

Obviously you have some post-high school education/training in order to be in the position you're in. That's the part you're not sharing with us. If you're gonna brag, you've got to fill in the middle part of the story.

 

Do you think that people who are born poor generally have upwards mobility in today's America? Or America in the 2000s? Why or why not?

 

Yes, they have upward mobility if they also have the brains and the skills and a bit of luck. If they spent their school years smoking pot and anxiously trying to figure out when they could get their first tattoo, odds are they've made other poor life choices and have not achieved upward mobility.

My parents (almost) always had decent jobs and we were not poor, but we were lower middle class at best. Cars were always used, not new. Lots of hand-me-down clothes. Had a garden so that we didn't have to spend money on store-bought veggies. Stuff like that. That said, I paid attention in school, joined the military and got a technical education AND post-service opportunities thru networking, and the upshot is that I now make about three times my parents' best combined income. I am middle middle class, and if I'm not wealthy it's because I don't want to put in the required effort.

The leftist mythology about being trapped in the economic circumstance you're born into is just that - mythology. In the real world you can work your way up.