Everyone Deserves to Make a Living Wage Regardless of Job/Status

[Stelio Kontos]

technically they most likely can . the trick is to get SO early and then manage your both incomes properly .

living in relationsip is relatively much cheaper then single life (you share costs and control your spendings (even unconsiously) much much more effectively )

this is also where a lot of people make huge mistake - they stay single untill 30 if not 40 and dont realise how ineffective financialy it is in longer run .

here i would point that im not saying people should marry young and have kids young - just find someone to share costs of living with in the 18-30 age bracket .

i could also go here on rant how much more effective polygamy would be in this case if all parties invovled worked but this is something that no country in west would ever allow to happen - as then more succesfull alpha males would be even more succesfull financialy if they had 2-3 females all working and living together so lets say that such things happen just unofficialy and its super effective if you have 3 incomes instead 1-2 :P

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you use discarded, outdated ideas like "alpha males".

https://www.iflscience.com/editors-b...an-alpha-male/

[kamuimac]

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you use discarded, outdated ideas like "alpha males".

https://www.iflscience.com/editors-b...an-alpha-male/

oh ye i have plenty of those i definetly prefer some of old-fashioned ways i do think that west with its recent changes to society is heading towards disaster

but speaking up some of things that i think and belive would definetly get me banned so ill keep them to myself .

i ll speak 1 - i do think that people should aim to start family (doesnt matter if with hetero or homo parents ) much faster then they do now. and that whole " i have still time to explore my options" will in future lead to disaster and complete fall of west towards asia/africa .

same with divorces - its huge plague of our times - leading towards disaster how fragile marriages are - and how easily families fall apart. and to economical problems of many people/children .

[Easo]

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you use discarded, outdated ideas like "alpha males".

https://www.iflscience.com/editors-b...an-alpha-male/

He is absolutely right about living together being cheaper, though.

[Themius]

That disposable income must come from somewhere - and that causes problems as well. Especially at the moment where lots of companies are struggling.

I haven't been saying that it's wrong - just that it's a trade-off between different factors that have to be considered, whereas you are shouting without references; and thus I will not bother with you. You can continue to live in your own bubble.

If you don’t get economics don’t make up shit. And I’ve posted references and this shit has become common knowledge do you need a reference to say the sky is blue?

[Forogil]

Just to avoid misunderstandings: It's the cloud-less day-time sky that is blue.

[Kathandira]

He is absolutely right about living together being cheaper, though.

My reply is more at the topic than at you.

If the minimum wage afforded a single person who rent an apartment, feed themself, pay their utilities, afford transportation, and cloth themself, that is great. If living with a second person allowed both people to save money, and afford some luxuries, that is even better!

However currently in some places, even living with two people makes it difficult to afford any more than the things I mentioned a single person should be able to afford. And attempting to do it alone simply isn't possible without needing to work multiple jobs.

[BeepBoo]

However currently in some places, even living with two people makes it difficult to afford any more than the things I mentioned a single person should be able to afford. And attempting to do it alone simply isn't possible without needing to work multiple jobs.

So, question. Would you prefer cities just up and say "we're full" and deny people who want to move there the ability to pursue that at whatever cost they deem fit?

What ways do you see as combating the shortage of housing RIGHT NOW in these popular areas that doesn't involve simply "wait months/years for new, bigger dwellings to be built"?

[Endus]

So, question. Would you prefer cities just up and say "we're full" and deny people who want to move there the ability to pursue that at whatever cost they deem fit?

What ways do you see as combating the shortage of housing RIGHT NOW in these popular areas that doesn't involve simply "wait months/years for new, bigger dwellings to be built"?

You can't solve a housing crisis in a "RIGHT NOW" timeframe. You need to change your development goals and procedures, and if necessary, have the local government take on construction themselves. You can't even fix it over a year or two. It needs long-term adjustments to policy and the time for them to have an effect.

As a for-instance, as it currently stands in most cities in North America, a developer who owns a plot of land has to apply to the city for approval for whatever they want to build there. Doesn't matter if it's got a building on the plot already or not; you need city approval. The city planners make that determination based on whether it falls within zoning guidelines and requirements; it's pretty much a "does it hit the checkmarks" kind of decision, not a subjective one. Those requirements can include density/height ("We won't let you build a subdivision here, it's zoned for mid-rise apartments"), it can include affordability ("You can build this building, but 30% of units must be affordable housing"), etc. There isn't generally any negotiation; you do what the city requires or you don't get to do anything with the land (you can sometimes do offsets; offer to build one building as 100% affordable housing and another as 0% rather than both as 30%, or lower the height of Building A to allow Building B to exceed height limits).

Like with a lot of things, this is a problem created by decades of bad decisions. You don't get out of that with a hand-wave.

[Kathandira]

So, question. Would you prefer cities just up and say "we're full" and deny people who want to move there the ability to pursue that at whatever cost they deem fit?

What ways do you see as combating the shortage of housing RIGHT NOW in these popular areas that doesn't involve simply "wait months/years for new, bigger dwellings to be built"?

Yes.

As for ways to combat it, there aren't any. If there are no vacancies, than it is what it is. Wait till new places are built, or vacancies open up.

The places I was talking about aren't even Cities. I'm talking commercial suburbs. For example, I live in New Jersey. Year after year it is getting more and more expensive to live here. And for a very long time, rent raised, and minimum wages stagnated at 7.50 an hour.

We recently moved up to $10.00/hr. But that still isn't enough to support yourself in a 1 bedroom apartment with 1 job at 40 hours a week. Before Taxes, that is $1,600. Average Rent in this state is $1,000. After Taxes, you make around 1,200. You have $200 for the month after paying rent alone. That will likely pay your utilities which range between $80-$120 pending on the season and how well the house retains heat and cool air (could cost more). Now you have between $80 and $120 left over to pay for food. That will barely cover it, and you don't have money for Health Insurance, Clothing, or Transportation. Nor furniture, a bed, or anything else that you can think of for basic living needs.

[BeepBoo]

Yes.

I'd say that kinda already happens with prices going up high enough that people physically CAN'T live there any more or realistically move there. I also prefer this method to doing something like, say, applying to the city for permission to move there, where they have to ensure you both have a job available that is suitable and that they have an accommodation ready for you, but I'm a personal freedom over everything kinda guy and I don't mind other people competing and cutting each other down.

Now you have between $80 and $120 left over to pay for food. That will barely cover it, and you don't have money for Health Insurance, Clothing, or Transportation. Nor furniture, a bed, or anything else that you can think of for basic living needs.

Sounds like you have a lot of people who are willing to accept getting bent over instead of being willing to upend their life and make a stand for what they really want. They're probably scared that, even if they make that stand, someone else will just come in and accept those conditions willingly and they'll still be SOL.

Tough luck. If someone is willing to accept worse conditions than you and sacrifice more to get what they want, more power to them.

[Kathandira]

I'd say that kinda already happens with prices going up high enough that people physically CAN'T live there any more or realistically move there. I also prefer this method to doing something like, say, applying to the city for permission to move there, where they have to ensure you both have a job available that is suitable and that they have an accommodation ready for you, but I'm a personal freedom over everything kinda guy and I don't mind other people competing and cutting each other down.


Sounds like you have a lot of people who are willing to accept getting bent over instead of being willing to upend their life and make a stand for what they really want. They're probably scared that, even if they make that stand, someone else will just come in and accept those conditions willingly and they'll still be SOL.

Tough luck. If someone is willing to accept worse conditions than you and sacrifice more to get what they want, more power to them.

That is the catch. Being born in this state, and whether you can make it or not depends on quite a few factors. One of which being what you decide to do with your life.

Admittedly, I messed up when I was younger. I wasn't thinking of my future and was more of a "justs tying to get by" kinda guy. It took me until I had a stroke of luck to where I was able to go to a Technical school when I was 27. Now i'm paying off the last of my debts and beginning to do some serious saving since I was able to land a great job. This job will allow me to uproot and get the hell out of this state. I'm hoping in two maybe three years, I should have enough to be able buy a house in a cheaper state, and work from home.

Since I lived that life style when I was younger, I made friends with many who were the same. They haven't been fortunate enough to get a chance at going back to school to work towards a more lucrative career. I have too many friends in their 30's and 40's who just can't get ahead at all. Since they have no money to move out of state with, and are bound to rent contracts, they can't just up and leave.

NJ is the epitome of the Rent Trap. 60% of those who live in this state rent, and the renters know they have their tenants by the balls.

[Themius]

I'd say that kinda already happens with prices going up high enough that people physically CAN'T live there any more or realistically move there. I also prefer this method to doing something like, say, applying to the city for permission to move there, where they have to ensure you both have a job available that is suitable and that they have an accommodation ready for you, but I'm a personal freedom over everything kinda guy and I don't mind other people competing and cutting each other down.


Sounds like you have a lot of people who are willing to accept getting bent over instead of being willing to upend their life and make a stand for what they really want. They're probably scared that, even if they make that stand, someone else will just come in and accept those conditions willingly and they'll still be SOL.

Tough luck. If someone is willing to accept worse conditions than you and sacrifice more to get what they want, more power to them.

Stand for what they believe in? The thing is, you kind of "need" a job to survive.

[BeepBoo]

Stand for what they believe in? The thing is, you kind of "need" a job to survive.

So find one somewhere else using this thing called the internet and move. Or accept that you lack the stature to be as immediately socially mobile as necessary and decide what else to do about it. Not my shortcoming; not my concern. Not everyone is owed a quality life and I vehemently disagree with OP's thread title.

[Themius]

So find one somewhere else using this thing called the internet and move. Or accept that you lack the stature to be as immediately socially mobile as necessary and decide what else to do about it. Not my shortcoming; not my concern. Not everyone is owed a quality life and I vehemently disagree with OP's thread title.

Because Wyoming has the same opportunities for jobs as New York.... you realise that jobs exist in areas right????

Why do you think not everyone is owed a basic survival like do you enjoy crime and poverty? It seems you are more concerned with hurting people that ensuring a functioning society. A common problem with right wing people. They'll cut their off their nose to spite their face.

All we know is that it improves everything for everyone... but you don't give a fuck about that do you? You just want to hurt someone you just want someone to be lowly and below you. Always a problem with the right wing.... has been for hundreds of years.

[BeepBoo]

Because Wyoming has the same opportunities for jobs as New York.... you realise that jobs exist in areas right????

You realize that, if that job somewhere fancy ends up making you broke still, it's probably not worth it... right? I digress. It's up to someone to decide what they're willing to accept within the context of their own private life. If you pay, you agree to the terms. I don't care if you feel begrudgingly about a deal after it happens or feel like you got reamed. You pay, you accept.

Why do you think not everyone is owed a basic survival

Because it is entirely feasible for me to see someone who isn't capable of being net-zero or positive in terms of what they give back to society in order to afford that lifestyle.

Numbers pulled out of my ass, so don't focus on them. Focus on the value prospects:

Say it takes 50k for a person to "survive" a year, on average. Ignore different places needing more or less for simplicity. It's entirely likely to me that someone would be "worth" less than 50k/year value to society. Either they're incapable, sick, or just don't want to work that much, etc. Regardless, that 50k value is still a total that needs to be met. So where does it come from? It has to come from somewhere. Likely in your ideal world it comes from the backs of those who are more capable or valuable (for whatever reason). I hate that fundamentally. Just because some other fuck decided to have you doesn't mean I agreed or care about you in any way. I likely wouldn't even notice if you suddenly were gone the next day. Stop trying to force me to acknowledge your existence as something it's not to me.

like do you enjoy crime and poverty?

I'm literally indifferent to poverty. Crime? No, but since you admit poverty leads to more crime out of desperation, you more strictly monitor those places and act swifter when they step out of line, since it's statistically more likely to happen there.

It seems you are more concerned with hurting people that ensuring a functioning society. A common problem with right wing people. They'll cut their off their nose to spite their face.

I won't bother debating you on the enigmatic definition of "functioning society" but I will say I think society could function just fine even if it let its weaker people die out as often as they would naturally without government interference.

All we know is that it improves everything for everyone...

Stop pedaling this lie. It does not. It improves the minimum and nothing more; often times at increasingly higher costs the farther up away from the bottom you get. What is "better" for me is me being as competitive as possible and getting the full benefit of my privileges, blessings, luck, etc.

Let me spin it like this: I don't care about whatever society immediately has at it's disposal. I don't care what improvements it makes. I could be just as happy with my relative standings I have now in the middle ages as I could 300 years from now with all the new fancy tech that era would have. What matters to me is feeling like I'm free to pursue the most benefit to myself without being inhibited by the burdens of others.

but you don't give a fuck about that do you? You just want to hurt someone you just want someone to be lowly and below you. Always a problem with the right wing.... has been for hundreds of years.

You keep spinning this false dichotomy of "if you're not willing to help those below you, you're HURTING THEM!" No. Some fuck that gets bit by a snake who I refuse to help isn't being killed or hurt by me. He's a victim of the snake. Me being indifferent might aid the snake's goal of killing him, but I'm not at fault. Inb4 "but there is such a thing as social contract, negligence, compulsion to help" no there isn't just because some small group of humanity wants to play like that's how that works doesn't change the actual factual state of what is at fault.

[Kathandira]

So find one somewhere else using this thing called the internet and move. Or accept that you lack the stature to be as immediately socially mobile as necessary and decide what else to do about it. Not my shortcoming; not my concern. Not everyone is owed a quality life and I vehemently disagree with OP's thread title.

I think this is a major point that I cannot agree with. Though definition of a quality life may differ.

[Stelio Kontos]

He is absolutely right about living together being cheaper, though.

Sure, but it's just hard to take him seriously. Especially when he tries to play the "alpha male" game.

[Katchii]

[SNIP]

You sound like one of those ridiculously selfish and pompous cartoon villains totally removed from reality, treating poor people as if they're pests that should be handled differently than real people.

[BeepBoo]

You sound like one of those ridiculously selfish and pompous cartoon villains totally removed from reality, treating poor people as if they're pests that should be handled differently than real people.

Except I'm none of those things. I've given some random dude at a gas station $100 just because he asked me and looked genuinely sad and distraught. I've done plenty to help people and I never treat anyone like an asshole even if I think they're "lesser" than me. My personal beliefs and how I treat people are immaterial to the discussion. The fact is, everyone deserves the right to chose how much burden they want to bare when it comes to those less fortunate. I will fight tooth and nail to retain it.

[Endus]

Not everyone is owed a quality life

Here's where we can dig into the meat of it.

Why not? What principles require a baseline of human suffering, in your view?