DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**DoctorDulitlBest** · 06-07-2006, 08:00 AM

Out here in Oregon the living

wage has been calculated by the experts to be about 11.00 per hour. According to my own calculations, I think a

person needs about 25K to meet basic expenses, unless "going without", in this economy. That is comparable to your

figures.

The cost of living here is not terrible, relatively speaking. But it is stunning how many get by on

less than that. People go without insurance, cars, new clothes, healthy food, health care; and do what they have to.

They also soak off their parents, grantparents, and other elder family members. When the baby boomers die, a lot

more people are going to be hurting. They also put a greater burden on emergency rooms, debt collection, prisons,

lawyers, and other expensive systems that poor people become involved in. (Banks do make a huge amount of money off

penalties from bounced $5 checks/debits, so that's good for them

).

Ultimately it's more efficient for

someone to get their money by earning it than from, say, "government handouts", to use a simplistic term. It's a

hell of a lot cheaper for us to give it to them that way than via a bloated system. And there is a big cost to

society to being filled with "poor people", or people who don't earn a living wage, by whatever reasonable

standards you want to use. Poor people are expensive; they have to use their own energy and resources for things

other than contributing to society; and they more often get stuck, with fewer opportunities in general to rise to a

greater level of contribution.

Politicians of both parties have been lying to us since the sixties; telling us

about how "the economy" keeps getting better. The shrinking middle class rarely gets to define what that

term, "the economy" means. The amount of poor people has particularly increased during the past four years or so,

while the wealth of wealthy individuals, as well as numbers of the very wealthiest, has increased

dramatically.

There are many complexities and sides to the picture, but the bottom line is that, since the

sixties, the ability of a family to get by on the earnings of one breadwinner has disappeared, for all except

the wealthiest. Real wages, and by "real" I mean accounting for everything, not just inflation, have done

nothing but go down steadily since that time.

In general, we have to unravel the big picture, and not just look

at minimum wage increases (see Pancho's #2 -- BTW, the figures in #3 might be controversial). I think they need to

play a part, ultimately; but not in isolation.

When you have people working their asses off full time doing

important work, they "deserve" to be paid a wage that enables them to live without creating more problems, for

themselves and society. By deserve I mean that it is not only their right, it is better for all of us.

For a

society to be doing any good at all, I believe you have to get everyone you possibly can to a certain quality of

living.

06-07-2006, 08:00 AM	#30
DoctorDulitlBest Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 683 Senior Member	Out here in Oregon the living wage has been calculated by the experts to be about 11.00 per hour. According to my own calculations, I think a person needs about 25K to meet basic expenses, unless "going without", in this economy. That is comparable to your figures. The cost of living here is not terrible, relatively speaking. But it is stunning how many get by on less than that. People go without insurance, cars, new clothes, healthy food, health care; and do what they have to. They also soak off their parents, grantparents, and other elder family members. When the baby boomers die, a lot more people are going to be hurting. They also put a greater burden on emergency rooms, debt collection, prisons, lawyers, and other expensive systems that poor people become involved in. (Banks do make a huge amount of money off penalties from bounced $5 checks/debits, so that's good for them ). Ultimately it's more efficient for someone to get their money by earning it than from, say, "government handouts", to use a simplistic term. It's a hell of a lot cheaper for us to give it to them that way than via a bloated system. And there is a big cost to society to being filled with "poor people", or people who don't earn a living wage, by whatever reasonable standards you want to use. Poor people are expensive; they have to use their own energy and resources for things other than contributing to society; and they more often get stuck, with fewer opportunities in general to rise to a greater level of contribution. Politicians of both parties have been lying to us since the sixties; telling us about how "the economy" keeps getting better. The shrinking middle class rarely gets to define what that term, "the economy" means. The amount of poor people has particularly increased during the past four years or so, while the wealth of wealthy individuals, as well as numbers of the very wealthiest, has increased dramatically. There are many complexities and sides to the picture, but the bottom line is that, since the sixties, the ability of a family to get by on the earnings of one breadwinner has disappeared, for all except the wealthiest. Real wages, and by "real" I mean accounting for everything, not just inflation, have done nothing but go down steadily since that time. In general, we have to unravel the big picture, and not just look at minimum wage increases (see Pancho's #2 -- BTW, the figures in #3 might be controversial). I think they need to play a part, ultimately; but not in isolation. When you have people working their asses off full time doing important work, they "deserve" to be paid a wage that enables them to live without creating more problems, for themselves and society. By deserve I mean that it is not only their right, it is better for all of us. For a society to be doing any good at all, I believe you have to get everyone you possibly can to a certain quality of living.
	Quote