91–100 of 147 posts
Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?
How would increased unemployment benefits assist a worker below the poverty line? Unemployment payments are below minimum wage, and by definition cannot be supplemental income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.
> a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion This is not a description of human behavior, but of inanimate objects in Newtonian physics. I'm sure we could find a way to make a description of stellar evolution sound applicable here too, but that doesn't make it so. > someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc Have you met anyone who w…
It was always easier for me, and all friends I know, to change jobs and upgrade while you're already in the workforce. After university, layoffs, sabaticals, even long vacations, it's kinda hard to get back "into it".
> Have you met anyone who works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.
Yea but question was couch potato vs underpaid worker, not a temporarily unemployed person. Definition of couch potato in popular culture is a lazy person that watches TV, not concerned with much. I know more people who lived on CC between jobs, but still moved to new positions, than couch potatoes who got an actual job after that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.
There is also the in-between where these benefits allow you to quit and then look for another job. Something that can be hard to do if you are working long hours as you'd need to take days off that may or may not be approved depending on the company you are working for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People cannot live on $7.25 an hour in the US, and the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare. Inflation skyrocketed in the past 5 years; minimum wage has not changed for 15 years. So, no correlation there. The corporate tax rate should be increased, as well as taxes on high-earners, as well as the minimum wage. Capital gains taxes for individuals with 1M+ of assets may be considered, but is u…
It's always interesting to watch how so many people oppose increasing the minimum wage (which stagnates since decades) while at the same time opposing increasing the taxation of corporations and billionaires (which goes down since decades). It's like, the society was created for corporations, not for regular people... and no, billionaires are in reality not taxed like regular people so let's not even try this theoret…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.
You seem to be assuming that action is beneficial when in fact, that is the polar opposite. Only anxieties cause toil - somebody who is at peace and relaxed, is going to rest and play just like children do when their basic food and care needs are met (possible to do with existing worldwide resources) If everybody sat around doing “nothing”, we would be better off than we are with everybody out there trying to make th…
I agree, and for someone who is on couch watching TV whole day every day, thought of stopping that and finding new soul sucking job is bound to cause more anexity, than for the person replacing one trash job with the other...
I agree it would be better doing nothing than doing wrong things, but you can't have progress without actually doing something. And if you're doing something you will also do mistakes. I absolutely do not approve greedy employees and people leaving their best life years for someone's latest BMW, but I also understand that it is inevitable there will be players like that in the market. What we need to do is keep going - acquire wealth we need for our day to day life and family, secure our future, both financially, but also through activism in form of rights and benefits for working class.
You seem to deduce quite a lot about me from a comment that you read and understood in light of your own frustration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.
People who sit at home doing nothing tend to get very depressed and ‘self medicate’ (drink, smoke, eat, etc) to fight that depression. I like to believe that most people really don’t want to get to that point and the reason they quit is not to basically slow-suicide. I don’t know about the numbers, but as I saw in my life, most people want to keep busy as they don’t know what to do with themselves. Sure there are exc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.
You seem to be assuming that action is beneficial when in fact, that is the polar opposite. Only anxieties cause toil - somebody who is at peace and relaxed, is going to rest and play just like children do when their basic food and care needs are met (possible to do with existing worldwide resources) If everybody sat around doing “nothing”, we would be better off than we are with everybody out there trying to make th…
Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?
I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent. It's really just not possible. McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
Plenty of people are living in poverty whilest working full time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent. It's really just not possible. McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
You're very confused. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-mo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent. It's really just not possible. McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
I am curious about how you think a $290/week (minimum wage) budget works. Can you give me a breakdown of how a family of three can survive off of this? I figure if you can't see how anyone in America could be below water on a minimum wage salary, you must have a good idea of how to survive on a shoestring budget. Here, I'll make it simple. At approximately $1,260/month, how would much would you allocate to each categ…