Not sure how to title this

[twoforjoy]

Or you can just call the HR department.

 

Who will in many cases direct you to the website.

 

I've job searched recently. It's great to think you can do it without internet access, but unless you are willing to settle for a part-time service job, you really can't.

[TXBeth]

But there will never be an economy that will sustain a larger market for more goods if the jobs making those goods are overseas.

 

In my neighborhood? :lol: If I asked for applicants for cleaning my bathroom for $10 an hour there would be a line down the street. But I am not going to pay someone to clean my bathroom. I don't know anyone who could afford to pay someone that. I have worked for less than that.

 

Seriously. If I offered $10/hr to clean my house I'd get a line down the street even if I was only willing to hire college grads.

 

I have a master's and spent a couple of years working part-time for $8/hr after grad school. It was all I could find.

 

This is not true in my area (DFW). Teenage babysitters demand at least $8/hr; house cleaners charge at least $25-30/hr. And I'm talking about individuals, not professional cleaning companies.

 

I hear you, and I often make this point myself, but this particular conversation originated in reference to the United States.

 

This doesn't surprise me, given that you live in a small village in Mexico.:) But again, if we're discussing the norm in the United States, some of your assumptions here are faulty. Most newspapers contain very little in the way of job listings ~ or may only include the listings on their web site. Increasingly, employers don't accept resumes in person. Making contact with employers really does, in this day and age in the United States, by no means comparable to the pre-1990 world. It just isn't.

 

When my BIL was trying to get a job recently, most employers told him that they never even look at applications/resumes submitted online. They only consider ones that are brought in by hand.

[Julie in Austin]

Mama geek writes,

 

I believe in the second amendment and guns just don't cost that much.

 

:001_huh:

 

If that's the world you want to live in, more power to you.

 

The world that I want to live in is the one where I can let my 10yo and 13yo bike three blocks to Dunkin Donuts without arming them first because we have police.

 

(Of course, my boys would love being armed. But that's not the point. :lol: )

[Mama Geek]

A good chunk goes to Social Security and Medicare. A *very* small amount goes to things like food stamps, WIC, TANF, and other programs for the poor.

 

We have figured from the time we started working that medicare and SS would not be there when we retired and I still figure that it is true. If I could have had all that money in my pocket or a retirement account I know for a fact that I would have it.

 

More needy. There's a difference. Nobody is saying that a poor person deserves the money more than you do. But, they need it more. And, social stability pretty much depends on not having a bunch of desperate, starving, penniless people running around.

 

How do you know somebody else needs it more. Maybe I would use it to take care of my family. Send my dd to a better college, help my IL's and parents out when they are too old to take care of themselves, maybe I would help out those that are friends and family that I know are struggling. Maybe I would have started a business. We talked about that several years ago and decided that the regulations, insurance and the cost of employing people would not make it profitable.

 

Do you know why we have government assistance? Not because the government decided, because it's so kind and generous, to help the poor. Because we were like thisclose to communism become a real force in our political system. Workers were agitating. People who are watching their kids starve go radical. They set up tent cities outside of the business that laid them off and demand a job at a living wage. They beg and panhandle. They strike. They threaten to overthrow the whole system. They scare the people with money and the people in power. So, the government, in the interest of preserving capitalism and thwarting potential revolution and keeping businesses (that don't want to pay everybody a living wage) happy, instituted a safety net.

 

If you want to see the kind of pretty-much-unfettered capitalism we have go down really fast, then get rid of the safety net.

 

The government assistance is a power grab, it isn't really about helping people, it is about controlling people. Let's go back to the public school example. As a whole, this country has given control of educating our children to the government. Parents now have very little say in what is taught. Kids graduate without knowing basic reading writing and arithmetic. They don't have the basic skills to run a household, let alone work a job that will support their family. Those who don't go on to higher education are being set up to go on government assistance. (Yes there are exceptions to this, I know that.)

[Mama Geek]

You know, my dh and I have discussed this country extensively. We as a people are pretty divided and I don't see anyway of coming together. We are just on opposite ends of the spectrum. It seems to be about 40% on 1 side and 40% on the other and about 20% in the middle who go back and forth.

[Julie in Austin]

You know, my dh and I have discussed this country extensively. We as a people are pretty divided and I don't see anyway of coming together. We are just on opposite ends of the spectrum. It seems to be about 40% on 1 side and 40% on the other and about 20% in the middle who go back and forth.

 

I think the proper role of govt is an enormously important conversation to have. In too many venues, you [meaning: the generic you, on both sides of the issue, not you personally] can just get away with repeating your own ideology's sound bites. But not here! One of the reasons that I love this board.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Julie in Austin

[Elizabeth in MN]

I have an honest question that is not trying to stir a pot, but it is something I've really wondered and would love other's thoughts. I don't even know what to call myself politically anymore, but I know that there are many on the left that believe the government should help as many people as possible, provide as many services as possible, and such, which it would do through higher taxes. I understand that side and do want services for those in need, but what I want to know is this.

 

Why do these people, especially the wealthiest of them, wait on the government to do it? Why are they not giving away huge percentages of their income to organizations that are already doing these things and living on much less themselves? If they truly believe our society should be like that, why wouldn't they already live that way? Why not take charge of it themselves and try to create a society like that through the goodness of people's hearts instead of forced taxes?

 

I know there are probably people who do this, but we have a large percentage of people in this country who do want that kind of country, yet you don't hear about it happening much.

 

I'm not a troll (now I know what that means!). I've just wondered about this for a long time.

 

Because people are inherently selfish and want to keep what thy view as theirs.

[Sputterduck]

Because people are inherently selfish and want to keep what thy view as theirs.

 

I think it's fair enough to consider the money you earn as yours. Of course for religious reasons many consider all money belonging to God, which is awesome.

[Slartibartfast]

You know, my dh and I have discussed this country extensively. We as a people are pretty divided and I don't see anyway of coming together. We are just on opposite ends of the spectrum. It seems to be about 40% on 1 side and 40% on the other and about 20% in the middle who go back and forth.

 

I think you are right, I am pretty much in the middle politically but I am seeing things that don't seem like they are sustainable practices.

 

People don't want to pay for entitlement programs, it is perfectly reasonable to want to keep more of one's salary.

 

People don't think people should need to be paid a "living wage"

 

People also do not see why American companies shouldn't outsource jobs overseas.

 

But...people still want to see a robust economy with a greater demand for goods which will lead them to hiring more people, overseas.

 

That isn't sustainable. A service industry economy is not a healthy economy.

[SKL]

I'm getting the sense that your reality is not my reality. I don't know where these unskilled workers demanding $50/hr are, or these domestic workers asking for $20/hr are, but I've never encountered them. My husband has a Ph.D., and he makes about $22/hr. (now, that is--when he started his job he was making $12/hr, with a master's degree). And, we feel extremely fortunate, because many people we know aren't doing nearly as well.

 

$50 per hour for unskilled labor is what the unions demanded, and what ended the majority of US automotive (and many similar) jobs. Probably more of them were replaced by computerized equipment than by foreign labor. The employers would not have felt the need to invest huge amounts and take huge risks if the US labor pool had not made itself so unsavory. Also please note that many of the products you buy are made by a foreign-based manufacturer, i.e., the parent company is in Japan or Germany or wherever. Why on earth would they bring labor-intensive jobs here, unless it was to get some government-funded incentive?

 

Even on this thread, in these difficult economic times, someone pointed out that "those are mostly low-paying service jobs" as if, who would want them?

 

PS since some asked, I pay Americans $20 per hour to have my house cleaned monthly. It is my choice and I don't mind it, but I wasn't making $20/hr until a couple years after I finished grad school as an MBA and lawyer. (It took me a long time to make as much as a union autoworker.) I also pay $20/hr for childcare when I work on the weekends. I could probably get the services cheaper, but it's worth it to deal with someone who will be more or less consistent and reliable. Plus, they need the money.

[Alison in KY]

Sputterduck, I just wanted to tell you that I actually agree with you ;), so you're not alone.

 

And yes, anyone walking around with an iphones who says it's a necessity would irritate me. Some form of communication, yes, but not an expensive phone.

 

I still remember the mom who once shared with me that she'd love to stay home with her kids (actually this has happened more than once) but that she had to work. Her work didn't appear like a necessity, but more of a choice considering they lived in an expensive neighborhood and drove a new car.

 

I've read so much of this that I have totally lost track of the original post :confused:

 

Alison

[SKL]

I so wish the idea that anything can be overcome if you just work hard enough were not such an ingrained part of our culture.

 

I hate to think of where we'd be if you got your wish.

[Sputterduck]

Sputterduck, I just wanted to tell you that I actually agree with you ;), so you're not alone.

 

And yes, anyone walking around with an iphones who says it's a necessity would irritate me. Some form of communication, yes, but not an expensive phone.

 

I still remember the mom who once shared with me that she'd love to stay home with her kids (actually this has happened more than once) but that she had to work. Her work didn't appear like a necessity, but more of a choice considering they lived in an expensive neighborhood and drove a new car.

 

I've read so much of this that I have totally lost track of the original post :confused:

 

Alison

 

Thank you. I appreciate it!

[edelweiss]

I hate to think of where we'd be if you got your wish.

 

I agree!! So we want people to feel that they are MORE entitled than they already are? :scared:

[Mama Geek]

I think you are right, I am pretty much in the middle politically but I am seeing things that don't seem like they are sustainable practices.

 

People don't want to pay for entitlement programs, it is perfectly reasonable to want to keep more of one's salary.

 

People don't think people should need to be paid a "living wage"

 

People also do not see why American companies shouldn't outsource jobs overseas.

 

But...people still want to see a robust economy with a greater demand for goods which will lead them to hiring more people, overseas.

 

That isn't sustainable. A service industry economy is not a healthy economy.

 

I want people to be able to work towards making more money. I want to see jobs stay in the US. I would love to see the US get back into manufacturing. I would love for people to be able to afford healthcare, education and a nice home. I wholeheartedly agree that a service industry economy is not a healthy economy. The 2 political sides are just so far apart on how to get there. It comes down to either more government and less free enterprise or more free enterprise and less government.

[edelweiss]

You know, my dh and I have discussed this country extensively. We as a people are pretty divided and I don't see anyway of coming together. We are just on opposite ends of the spectrum. It seems to be about 40% on 1 side and 40% on the other and about 20% in the middle who go back and forth.

 

 

I agree. I think our nation is completely divided in our philosophies, and I don't see that division ending. I really don't see us coming together. :001_huh:

[MBM]

I think the proper role of govt is an enormously important conversation to have. In too many venues, you [meaning: the generic you, on both sides of the issue, not you personally] can just get away with repeating your own ideology's sound bites. But not here! One of the reasons that I love this board.

 

I can't agree with your last sentence. I think people on these boards repeat their own dogged ideological sound bites quite often with a few exceptions.

[Julie in Austin]

I can't agree with your last sentence. I think people on these boards repeat their own dogged ideological sound bites quite often with a few exceptions.

 

I probably should have said: they get a smack down for repeating soundbites here that they wouldn't get in most venues in the real world or in the media. You are right that there are surely sound bites here!

[Slartibartfast]

$50 per hour for unskilled labor is what the unions demanded, and what ended the majority of US automotive (and many similar) jobs. Probably more of them were replaced by computerized equipment than by foreign labor. The employers would not have felt the need to invest huge amounts and take huge risks if the US labor pool had not made itself so unsavory. Also please note that many of the products you buy are made by a foreign-based manufacturer, i.e., the parent company is in Japan or Germany or wherever. Why on earth would they bring labor-intensive jobs here, unless it was to get some government-funded incentive?

 

Even on this thread, in these difficult economic times, someone pointed out that "those are mostly low-paying service jobs" as if, who would want them?

 

PS since some asked, I pay Americans $20 per hour to have my house cleaned monthly. It is my choice and I don't mind it, but I wasn't making $20/hr until a couple years after I finished grad school as an MBA and lawyer. (It took me a long time to make as much as a union autoworker.) I also pay $20/hr for childcare when I work on the weekends. I could probably get the services cheaper, but it's worth it to deal with someone who will be more or less consistent and reliable. Plus, they need the money.

 

They took concessions years ago to reduce that. Unskilled auto jobs start at about $14 an hour. Those salaries can get *as high* as $45 an hour (in international non-Union firms) depending on skills and experience. I think we all realize that not all auto worker jobs are unskilled.

[twoforjoy]

Even on this thread, in these difficult economic times, someone pointed out that "those are mostly low-paying service jobs" as if, who would want them?

 

Well, sure. Because working full-time at minimum wage brings you about $15K/year. That is not close to enough to live on in most parts of this country. And yet, tons of people are taking them, out of desperation.

[livingnlearning]

We don't have a lot of money, we live pretty much paycheck to paycheck and are not driving new cars or have a nice house by any means. We're on a shoestring.

 

For a time last year three of our neighbors were on disability. One of them is a Vietnam vet and had been short-changed on his disability pay for thirty years-he came home stone deaf and worked his tail off supporting his family until a smart young lady figured out he had only been getting a fraction of his pay. He is generous with it now, still works hard and helps people out.

 

Another neighbor was on post-traumatic disability from the Coast Guard. He voluntarily joined the Coast Guard, ended up helping to recover the body of a drowned person and got PTSD (he was on deck when they pulled the body up-he was actually the cook on the ship). He no longer worked at all, just lived on his disability. His disability pay was twice my husband's paycheck. He had a new truck, spent money like water, and spent all day drinking whiskey.

 

Another neighbor is PTSD from the Gulf war... neither he or his wife work. He has a new big house, three large new vehicles, four new four-wheelers, and spends all day hunting and fishing all year long. This past spring he got busted for doing drugs and abusing his kids.

 

I'm all for helping people out and I do when and what I can but good heavens, a working man trying to raise a family can only do so much with his share of the taxes. Our taxes were going up and so was all the disability pay they were getting.

 

I would gladly pay more in taxes if I trusted the people spending it.

 

I would gladly pull scads of money out of the system and use it to provide healthcare for everyone. I care more about health care for people than I do high pay checks for elected officials and fringe research studies and wasteful spending.

 

But we can't get there from here. I also am starting to believe this country is too divided.

[twoforjoy]

Our taxes were going up and so was all the disability pay they were getting.

 

Are you sure about this? Because marginal tax rates have been declining for like the last 30-40 years. I keep hear how people are paying more than ever in taxes and being "taxed to death," but the statistics don't seem to bear that out. Nearly everybody is paying less, in terms of percentages, in taxes than they were a generation or two or three ago (those golden ages when, apparently, everything in this country was great--wonderful education, little crime, well-behaved kids--except the tax rate, I guess). So I'm not sure why we think we're paying more in taxes, other than that some politicians and media outlets have made themselves very popular perpetuating that myth.