2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

You do realize that $9 an hour is poverty level for most families, don't you?

A family does not make 9$ an hour.

A person does.

You do realize that a person cannot live on $9/hr?

On the contrary,
9$ is 360 dollars a week. 18, 720 a year. The per capita income in my town is 15,000, the median income for males is 28k, and the median income for women is 21 k. So I guess roughly 40% of females "can't live".

Plenty do live on that amount of cash. Now if the government would remove themselves from our wallet, 18,720 would be a fairly easy existence. Unfortunately it does not do this.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

18,720 would be a fairly easy existence.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

A family does not make 9$ an hour.

A person does.

On the contrary,
9$ is 360 dollars a week. 18, 720 a year. The per capita income in my town is 15,000, the median income for males is 28k, and the median income for women is 21 k. So I guess roughly 40% of females "can't live".

Plenty do live on that amount of cash. Now if the government would remove themselves from our wallet, 18,720 would be a fairly easy existence. Unfortunately it does not do this.

Show me your budget for yourself and two kids for $18,720. Please include rent, utilities, transportation, day care, food, health expenses, clothing and school supplies.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Show me your budget for yourself and two kids for $18,720. Please include rent, utilities, transportation, day care, food, health expenses, clothing and school supplies.

Add savings, insurance, phone/tv/internet service, and other incidentals.

[srmom]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

When you make claims like "The unions intentionally price the poor out of work" you're the one failing at logic.

You can argue that this is a side effect, but the goal of unions is to ensure that their workers, many of whom are poor themselves, get paid a liveable wage and are treated fairly.

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

LOL. Oh no you didn't just post that.
I knew a guy who worked tool and die for Daimler Chrysler ( back when Daimler owned them) who made something along the lines of $98 an hour when he worked on Sundays. He also told me since no management was at work on Sundays they would just sit around drinking beer and watching TV/football while on the clock.....making $98 an hour. I was still in school at the time and up to my eyeballs in debt so I remember thinking, "F*ck college! I want to learn tool and die!".

[carnation]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

What she said!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

You missed the point of my post entirely.

And there's nothing stopping you from learning a trade and earning union wages if that is what you desire.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

LOL. Oh no you didn't just post that.
I knew a guy who worked tool and die for Daimler Chrysler ( back when Daimler owned them) who made something along the lines of $98 an hour when he worked on Sundays. He also told me since no management was at work on Sundays they would just sit around drinking beer and watching TV/football while on the clock.....making $98 an hour. I was still in school at the time and up to my eyeballs in debt so I remember thinking, "F*ck college! I want to learn tool and die!".

Again, so learn the trade and do it if life is so much better that way.

It's a bit like people who say it's nice to be poor, or easy. So do it then if it's so easy to live the high life off of food stamps. They're not volunteering to be broke for a reason.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You missed the point of my post entirely.

And there's nothing stopping you from learning a trade and earning union wages if that is what you desire.



Again, so learn the trade and do it if life is so much better that way.

It's a bit like people who say it's nice to be poor, or easy. So do it then if it's so easy to live the high life off of food stamps. They're not volunteering to be broke for a reason.

I think some people "volunteer to be broke" and make less money due to their chosen career field but feel passionate about what they do and accept it, even if it isn't right. I'm thinking of those who are legal aid attorneys, social workers, teachers in schools with great kids but no money or parental support, and so on. Some of the smartest and best attorneys I know have beliefs for equal access int he justice system and work for Legal Aid or as public defenders and their debt is crippling and they are really really broke but the feelings of self worth from their work helps, and they have jobs unlike a lot of young lawyers who thought they could go BigLaw from a T3 school.

I've been really lucky that I found the job I did while in school and was able to save money for these times that are much leaner, but being single has helped that. I can't remember my last raise, my health insurance is FUBAR starting January 1, but things could be a lot worse and I'm trying to be positive that it will get better and I'm going to leave Idaho in the next couple of years and it won't be my problem anymore. I also asked a roommate from college who is from Sweden if she could find me a husband so I can move there and enjoy some social democracy, but I'm not holding my breath

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You missed the point of my post entirely.

And there's nothing stopping you from learning a trade and earning union wages if that is what you desire.

Pretty sure this means you missed their point entirely, too.

It's impossible for both of these statements to be true:

-Unions protect workers by guaranteeing a livable wage.
-Union labor is prohibitively expensive.

If the latter is true, then workers are not "protected" - on the whole, a few benefit while most take the dickpunch. Examples of exorbitant union labor rates directly contradict the notion that unions are "important" for "protecting the little guy" - at least, on a global level.

Obviously the issue is much more gray than those black-and-white statements, but we're not into those gray areas yet.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

LMAO, right. same look i gave.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I think some people "volunteer to be broke" and make less money due to their chosen career field but feel passionate about what they do and accept it, even if it isn't right. I'm thinking of those who are legal aid attorneys, social workers, teachers in schools with great kids but no money or parental support, and so on. Some of the smartest and best attorneys I know have beliefs for equal access int he justice system and work for Legal Aid or as public defenders and their debt is crippling and they are really really broke but the feelings of self worth from their work helps, and they have jobs unlike a lot of young lawyers who thought they could go BigLaw from a T3 school.

This is true, but they're not doing it because living off public aid is so awesome and you can buy Cadillacs and Air Jordans on food stamps. Different than what I'm talking about. I'm addressing people who think that life being poor is so totally easysauce.

I've been really lucky that I found the job I did while in school and was able to save money for these times that are much leaner, but being single has helped that. I can't remember my last raise, my health insurance is FUBAR starting January 1, but things could be a lot worse and I'm trying to be positive that it will get better and I'm going to leave Idaho in the next couple of years and it won't be my problem anymore. I also asked a roommate from college who is from Sweden if she could find me a husband so I can move there and enjoy some social democracy, but I'm not holding my breath

Ha! Is gay marriage legal in Sweden? Tell her I'd take a husband or a wife >.>

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Pretty sure this means you missed their point entirely, too.

It's impossible for both of these statements to be true:

-Unions protect workers by guaranteeing a livable wage.
-Union labor is prohibitively expensive.

If the latter is true, then workers are not "protected" - on the whole, a few benefit while most take the dickpunch. Examples of exorbitant union labor rates directly contradict the notion that unions are "important" for "protecting the little guy" - at least, on a global level.

Obviously the issue is much more gray than those black-and-white statements, but we're not into those gray areas yet.

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Without kids, sure. You did leave out the part about taxes..which makes it harder. (that includes food taxes, building taxes, etc)

I lived on less an hour myself. Not too difficult. My parents don't coddle. My friends had no help either living on their own. Shoot, the people next door to me right now live on less and are doing fine.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Show me your budget for yourself and two kids for $18,720. Please include rent, utilities, transportation, day care, food, health expenses, clothing and school supplies.

Wait, you're talking about someone who made poor decisions (that being having kids while making minimum wage). If you make poor decisions, then I'm not sure I feel sorry that you're making 18,720 while making aforementioned poor decisions. Even if you have a high paying job and then was fired, while having two kids you took a calculated risk/gamble and failed. Still don't feel sorry.

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I can't remember my last raise, my health insurance is FUBAR starting January 1,

I wonder why.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

A "liveable" wage varies greatly by geographic region. In NYC or Southern California, $65K a year would put you on a pretty tight budget. If you're paying $20K a year in day care, it would also make your budget pretty tight.
Roofing is a really dangerous job and most roofers end up injuring themselves pretty badly or getting asbestosis or silicosis from inhaling all the crap they inhale. Tar burns are pretty awful too. Many jobs are paid better because they are hazardous.

I do admit that the UAW got ridiculously greedy and strayed from its original purpose. UAW leaders are as out of touch as high level executives are. However, there are many unions that have not been that way, which is why I mentioned grocery store employees and teachers.

During a management meeting in my corporation this week, after they announced both our raises and our benefit cost increases, one of the managers pointed out that the raises are less than the new cost of the benefits and the executive leadership said "Well, that's only true for the employees making less than $60,000 a year", as if that was a small number of people. In reality, that's about 85% of the employees. "Only the employees making less than $60,000 a year"... ONLY.. as in "only for the employees who are already struggling to make ends meet".