Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are certain jobs this will never work. The jobs I'm talking about are the ones that keep the world 'functioning', keep the lights on, produce the food, protect us, save lives, put out fires, fight for us, deliver everything we need... you know, the critical things.
Sit inside in front of a computer, ... and you want more time off? You poor baby.
There are certain jobs this will never work. The jobs I'm talking about are the ones that keep the world 'functioning', keep the lights on, produce the food, protect us, save lives, put out fires, fight for us, deliver everything we need... you know, the critical things.
Sit inside in front of a computer, ... and you want more time off? You poor baby.
There, I said it.
I've worked in an office in the past. At best the people "worked" 25 hours a week and wasted the remainder slacking off. There, I said THAT.
The Jungle was written in an era when millions of eastern Europeans were flooding into the country, willing to work really hard for long hours and low pay; and most of them spoke very limited English. The management could get away with exploitative conditions.
When labor is in shortage, like it is now, management has to offer more incentives.
Though, we are in the midst of a new wave of immigration that will eventually alleviate the labor shortage, so possibly exploitative practices will make a comeback. I guess we’ll find out.
Sounds familiar.
The economy then was in the midst of the Industrial Revolution and changing at almost light speed from an agricultural economy (partly due to industrialization) to a manufacturing one. The US had spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific and was now filling in the empty spaces.
People don't know good they have it... and our system is the best in the world to create wealth. However...
we do need it to make families a priority again, especially for those who are married and want children. We need the birth rate to go up and families to be families again.
Work and careers are no substitute for "a life". In that regard we might have some common ground.
Bringing back the draft would actually help. The military will test you to see what and where your innate skills are. People like doing what they're good at.
... just sayin'
It's the best system in the world to create poverty. Not wealth.
It's the best system in the world to create poverty. Not wealth.
Yet the poverty rate has dropped for the last five or six decades (with small temporary increases) and the number of people moving out of the middle class into the upper middle class, or higher, has risen at the same time.
Yet the poverty rate has dropped for the last five or six decades (with small temporary increases) and the number of people moving out of the middle class into the upper middle class, or higher, has risen at the same time.
The 'poverty rate' in 1995 was 13.8% and in 2022 it was 11%. Not a significant difference.
And that 2.8% difference is largely due to the fact that minimum-wage earners have seen modest increases in pay but the definition of poverty has not adjusted with the cost of living.
In 1995, the federal minimum wage was $4.25/hr--$8,840 per year. The poverty level for a family of 4 was $15k. In other words, the statistics recognized that a person could be earning substantially more than minimum wage, and still be poor.
Today, the poverty level for a family of 4 is $31k--or $15/hr. In other words, our current definition of poverty is minimum wage for most people. It defines anyone earning more than minimum wage as not being poor.
We simply have changed the definition of what is poor, so that the statistics make us feel better. It doesn't change how many people skip meals and how many people are behind on their bills.
The 'poverty rate' in 1995 was 13.8% and in 2022 it was 11%. Not a significant difference.
And that 2.8% difference is largely due to the fact that minimum-wage earners have seen modest increases in pay but the definition of poverty has not adjusted with the cost of living.
In 1995, the federal minimum wage was $4.25/hr--$8,840 per year. The poverty level for a family of 4 was $15k. In other words, the statistics recognized that a person could be earning substantially more than minimum wage, and still be poor.
Today, the poverty level for a family of 4 is $31k--or $15/hr. In other words, our current definition of poverty is minimum wage for most people. It defines anyone earning more than minimum wage as not being poor.
We simply have changed the definition of what is poor, so that the statistics make us feel better. It doesn't change how many people skip meals and how many people are behind on their bills.
We have spent $14,000,000,000,000 (14T) on the War on Poverty. You know what we learned?
If you want to live above the poverty level you must graduate High School, Wait until your are at least 21 to marry and have children and have a full time job. If you do those 3 things your chances of being in poverty is 2%. 32 hrs is not full time.
The 'poverty rate' in 1995 was 13.8% and in 2022 it was 11%. Not a significant difference.
And that 2.8% difference is largely due to the fact that minimum-wage earners have seen modest increases in pay but the definition of poverty has not adjusted with the cost of living.
In 1995, the federal minimum wage was $4.25/hr--$8,840 per year. The poverty level for a family of 4 was $15k. In other words, the statistics recognized that a person could be earning substantially more than minimum wage, and still be poor.
Today, the poverty level for a family of 4 is $31k--or $15/hr. In other words, our current definition of poverty is minimum wage for most people. It defines anyone earning more than minimum wage as not being poor.
We simply have changed the definition of what is poor, so that the statistics make us feel better. It doesn't change how many people skip meals and how many people are behind on their bills.
Have you ever considered that that 11% may be a floor? Just like there will always be people won't ever work, or stay at work, who won't use birth control and pop out kid after kid.
One of your "poor" people just walked by my house. He's in his 50s and I've known him for forty years. He's never had a job he stayed at for more than a month. Ever. But he does make sure he gets his morning 24 pack at 7AM and his evening 24 pack at 5 PM. He doesn't drink all of them on his own, he has a couple buddies, who I also know, who help him.
No amount of government programs, job training or economic growth are going to make him, or them, not poor.
I worked in a process industry where plants 24/7. Took 8 hrs to shut it down so we tried not to.
WFH and reduced hours makes sense only in a non manufacturing and simple low cost facility. We won’t be a manufacturing power houses again in most states. Maybe when we get robots who can do the work but these plants pay good wages compared to most jobs outside it these days.
I think it’s easier to work 4 hrs in a plants that producing things vs shuffling paper in most office settings I hear. I think meaningful work is more important than the hours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
