Mininum Wage Protest
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 06:22 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I don't think we have to increase the minimum wage.
There just should be a minimum income. Every person is guaranteed a minimum income that is enough
to survive, but not high enough to live comfortably. Wages at fast food chains would increase, because
otherwise there would not be a financial incentive for anyone to work there.

We already have a "minimum income", namely welfare. AFAIK, depending on the state and # of kids and programs, etc., welfare (ie the "minimum income") is around $1,000/month. The current "minimum wage" if you work 40 hours per week is $1,247/month ($7.25*40*4.3).

As far as I can tell you are proposing that we raise the "minimum income" (ie what you get from welfare) to be the same as the "minimum wage". If that happened, why would anybody work at all if the "minimum income" they got from sitting at home and playing XBox was the same as the "minimum income" they got from working full-time?

Or are you saying the "minimum income" only applies to people who work full-time? In that case it's just a monthly, rather than hourly, minimum, but if it's tied to full-time work, it's a fixed formula: [minimum wage/hour] * 40 hours/week * 4.3 weeks/year = [minimum income/month]. I don't see how that's any different than the current "minimum wage".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 10:45 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Previously I wrote that: non-libertarian intellectuals like to switch to mental chess games, like: “Well, what if the police, instead of having guns with bullets, had laser guns? Photons have no mass, therefore it is not physical force, which is the definition of violence. So it's not violent to shoot him with a laser gun?” I love mental games too, so if were in a brain puzzle forum I'd say “Touche! You got me there.” But in a political forum, the goal is for everybody to throw out practical ideas to solve problems, not play games.

Luminon replied: LOL, man, that's even better than the golden toilet argument Yes, that is definitely an pseudo-intellectual thinking that I see so often. Destroy the definition, destroy the internet opponent. It's like when Willam Lane Craig debates in the public, Christians don't understand him and think he's making real arguments.

Thank you for backing us up on this with the exact same verbatim argument. You sure you liberals aren't collaborating since, as you can see, I've heard this photon argument before.

Yes, because Luminon and I are prone to agree.

But because you don't seem to get it: that isn't a response.

Are there situations which you would consider involved physical force which are not covered by your provided sophomoric definition?

Yes. And you admit as such. So there's that.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Lest any non-statists are reading, YES, liberals REALLY are so desperate to defend their favorite tool, violence (physical force), that they'll play games like “So I'll blow you up with a photon gun and it's not violence.”

Uh, guy? I didn't say that.

I said your definition is inadequate. It is. Admit that and move on, eh?

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You've made it clear that you disagree with the definition of words according to the English dictionary.

Do you acknowledge the definition of 'knowledge' I provided?

Do you acknowledge that epistemology is not a completely solved problem?

'Cause I've got news for you. Dictionary definitions are not sufficient for any but the most cursory and generalist purposes.

The dictionary defines 'God', too. I wonder why we still have different religions? The answer's right there in the dictionary!

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You've shown us you have your own definitions that mean something quite different. The problem is that I don't speak cjlr.

Friendo, you don't speak reality.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  When I use words like 'violence', 'matter', 'physical', etc., I AM using them to mean exactly what's in the English dictionaries.

Except for the inevitable exceptions, naturally.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  How can we ever debate if we're speaking two different language? How am I supposed to know what this same combination of letters means in cjlr? Do you have a cjlr<->English translator?

The part where I said “I don't think your definition is sufficient” was my way of telling you I didn't think your definition was sufficient. (I know I can be hard to follow sometimes).

Coercion is a much easier word to define. You could have used that, perhaps.

Or, y'know, admitted that there are actions you would classify as “violent” which are not covered by your dilettante's definition. Just a thought.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This isn't complicated. Of course a “law” in and of itself is not a “physical object”. Duh. I never said otherwise.

You said a lien wasn't a physical object. Sure. But you said it as if that meant something, which it very much doesn't. That statement was useless.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I always asked “how are you going to get people to comply with the law against their will?” Does it involve bullets, tasers, handcuffs, prisons? If so, then enforcement of the law IS physical. At least according to the English dictionary. I'm still not clear what 'physical' means in cjlr.

How are the provisions of a lien enforced under Swiss law?

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Enough with this. If you STILL don't understand the what “fraud” means in English, we're getting nowhere. All fraud (falsifying documents), whether it's tax-related or not, is illegal under Swiss law.

Tax fraud is a separately and specifically defined crime under Swiss law. It's in the tax code. Section 6. See for yourself.

But while that is true, it's not particularly relevant.

Your claim was that force was never used. You have not substantiated this claim.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But that has nothing at all to do with my claim that refusing to pay taxes is not a criminal offense.

No, it's a misdemeanour. As I literally and explicitly said, in my earlier post. So there's that.

Now, as a misdemeanour, it has consequences.

If you don't pay your taxes, you are generally fined.

If you don't pay the fine, you are... ?

(protip: the answer is not "you are fined ad infinitum without it ever being called due")

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You still have been unable to come up with even one name of someone experienced “physical contact” for not paying taxes, so I'm sticking by my claim.

You still don't seem to understand.

Whether or not I am able to find a personal example after a couple minutes' search is utterly irrelevant.

My contention, which you are bizarrely unable even to entertain, is that one cannot ignore the provisions of the law indefinitely.

How are the provisions of a lien enforced under Swiss law?

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Recap:
cjlr: “What happens if you refuse to comply with the terms of the lien?”
Frankksj: “You don't get title and cannot transfer the property to a buyer or an heir without paying the lien including interest.”
You dispute this answer,
Nope. That didn't happen outside your squalid fantasies.
(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  so I reply:
frankksj: “Well, you tell me. What happens?”
cjlr: “That's not how this works, you poor fool. You've not answered the question.”

Because as well you know, the answer is that the provisions of the lien are enforceable, which may involve force depending on the nature of their violation.

An attempt to circumvent the lien by selling said property is a criminal offence.

Criminal offences tend to be followed up on by most judicial systems.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Dude this language barrier is insufferable. To someone who reads English, YES, I did answer the question, you just didn't like my answer, so I asked for your answer, and so you call me a fool and tell me to answer the question again.

You're not playing on the same plane of reality as most people. So there's that.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Oy vey. Language barrier again. I did not ask what the law says, I asked what YOU PROPOSE SHOULD HAPPEN. Totally different concept. At least in English. Maybe in cjlr “What do you propose” is synonymous with “What does the law entail”, but in English, they're unrelated.

Your exact words were “what do you propose happens to me”. Present tense of 'happens' implies what would happen now, ie, what the present situation dictates.

In interpreting your ambiguous question, I picked the wrong intepretation. Meh. Whoops!

My answer is I don't know what ought to happen in a vague and unspecified hypothetical situation. Funny, that.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Seriously you play that game? Ok: “Q: What if I'm living in Switzerland and secretly engage in business which I do not disclose to the IRS?”

News flash: it still depends.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Please copy/paste where my claim was 'does' and not 'should'?

Your claim was about what the Swiss government does.

You think asking me what they should do is relevant, how?

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Jeez, how many times do I need to answer it? “You don't get title and cannot transfer the property to a buyer or an heir without paying the lien including interest”

Are those provisions enforced?

If so, how?

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I guess when you're discussing with fellow liberals you can just keep asking the question over and over again and get different answers every time. It doesn't work like that when debating libertarians. We think through our answers, we research and fact-check first...
Unless it's to do with Einstein and relativity, amirite?
(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... so no matter how many times you ask the question, my answer will be the same until some evidence to the contrary is presented.

Back to the facetious black and white “us vs them” worldview, I see.

You and your self-identified in-group are all the same and exclusively correct,
THEREFORE, all those not in your in-group are equivalently wrong and functionally homogeneous.

I grant that that's a much simpler way to look at the world, but it's hardly a useful one.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Ah, but I can. Igor Izmestyev. A senator from Bashkortostan was arrested at the Bishkek airport on January 16, charged with, among other things, tax evasion.

Thanks for not providing the citation on that, by the way.

Do you see how that accomplishes nothing and is in no way relevant?

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  See, the burden of proof is on the one proving the positive.

If the alternative is null. Your claim was not null. This is not complicated.

Your claim was that the Swiss government never used force in relation to enforcing collection of taxes. That's simply not true.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If I was unable to find the name of one, then I would concede that I don't know the answer, and that you could be right that tax evasion is not a crime in Bashkortostan. By contrast, the way you liberals work is that I've given you links from the Swiss government, Wikipedia, NY Times, NBC, and a google search 2 million links, all confirming that tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland. You insist that we're all wrong, and you're right.

I never said that. Once again you fail to read and understand what other people write. It is a serious problem. You should probably talk to someone about it.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yet you cannot come up a link to ANY 3rd party source that backs up your claim, and cannot produce one name. Yet, you still maintain you're right.

The Swiss law code says tax fraud is a crime and tax evasion is a misdemeanour.

I never said what you have convinced yourself I have said. You are incapable of keeping straight what other people say.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Regarding physics and Einstein, when others I'm debating reject the use of axioms and logic to shed light on economics, claiming economics is too complex, I frequently responded that if Einstein could use axioms and logic to shed understand something as complex and unintuitive as the theory of relativity, we should be willing to use axioms and logic when discussing economics. I in no way claimed to have studied physics. I was under the impression my statement about Einstein was universally accepted. You're a physicist, and you strongly disagree with the statement. Fine. I'll look for another analogy the next time I hear that economics is too complex to break down with logic. I have no problem at all admitting that I know nothing about physics, and if you're the expert, I defer to you.

You weren't just surface wrong. You were wrong on every possible level. Up to and including what logic and axioms are.

You supported your thesis with a false data point. It's nice that you finally admit that. But your thesis is still neither coherent nor cogent. So there's that.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now, consider the reverse. I've lived in and had an office in Switzerland for 12 years. I've owned businesses in Switzerland, both my own and as a shareholder. I've been on the board of a directors. I've hired several attorneys in Switzerland, and have a Swiss accountant. And now the business is operating out of Hong Kong, so I have both Swiss and Hong Kong attorneys. I hired a firm to negotiate the Pauschalbesteuerung (lump sum taxation based on property in lieu of income tax). Yet, when I made uncontroversial claims about Swiss taxation, claims which I backed up with links to the Swiss tax code, you insisted I didn't know what I was talking about, and that you know so much more about Swiss law and taxes than I.

What you said was income tax may be replaced by property tax.

This was to attest your claim that the Swiss government never uses force in relation to collecting taxes.

That doesn't even come close to logically following.

What would have happened if you didn't pay the property tax either? A lien, you say? What would have happened if you ignored the provisions of the lien? Feel free to continue not answering that. I expect no less.

(08-12-2013 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I have a feeling that ANY topic I brought up, even if it was something I held 5 PhD's in, you would still claim to know so much more about it than I.

You tried to pretend you knew more about Einstein and relativity. As it happens.

When you start making claims along the line of “X never does Y”, it naturally prompts consideration of exceptions. If there are any, the statement is what we might call not true.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-12-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 05:06 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  In your schpeel above, you are talking about increasing wages to stimulate the economy.

Please copy/paste when I said anything like that. No strawmen, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 07:25 AM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 10:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 05:06 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  In your schpeel above, you are talking about increasing wages to stimulate the economy.

Please copy/paste when I said anything like that. No strawmen, please.

Very well,

"And, naturally, when the cost of living remained flat, the poor got better and better as wages continued to rise, and the cost of living did not, and inequality shrunk."

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 07:56 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 08:04 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 08:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Cathym112,

I asked you why, in the US, in the 2 decades before 1971 the poor and middle class continually gained ground, yet during the past 42 years the situation has reversed and all the growth has been concentrated among the rich.

Your response is that growth “fluctuates and cycles”. Fine, but this doesn't explain why the growth since 1971 has only gone to the rich, and the situation was reversed prior to that.

You then say the reason the poor did better in the 1950's and 60's is because “it was just a part of the cycle, specifically, it was the trough.” Okay, so the 1950's and 60's were a “trough”, and as a result, the poor and middle class gained grown and got richer.

Q: Is that characteristic of all troughs?

Q: What do you call the period since 1971?

Q: Since we've now been going 42 years without a “trough” and the poor and middle class are getting wiped out, what can we do to bring back another “trough”?

No no no. That's not how it works. You make the claim, YOU provide the data. Provide the data that, "and all the growth has been concentrated among the rich." Your statement that we've been in a trough for 42 years is patently false.

You want to understand macroeconomics with the least about of background knowledge? Here is the only thing you really need to know because it applies to everything. The greater the risk, the greater the return. The less risk, the less return. I'll come back to that.


I'm not going to spoon feed you information. If you don't know what the characterists of a trough is, look it up.

The answer to your question about what happened in the 1970s has a lot to do with the income tax rates, and the interest rates for borrowing. Look those up. I'm not going to do it for you.

The higher the interest rates, the tighter the lending. In the 90s, the interest rate began to decline, and people were able to afford more loans. Housing starts (building permits - a leading indicator) spiked. Houses sprung up, areas were developed. And the price of real estate increased. With a low interest rate on mortgages, the demand for housing also increased the price. An extra $30k premium on a house was an extra 50 per month on a 30 year fixed rate loan. That's affordable. The economy in the 90 and 2000's experienced an expansion.

Now, what is also contributing to the rise of goods and services is our changing lawsuit culture. Services like child care increased not only because of increased wages, but the increase of insurance premiums to run those services.

Even toy companies like Mattel were suddenly facing increasing tort lawsuits over once relatively innocuous toys. To compensate and to also compensate for OSHA requirements, there is a small price increase to toys.

The increase to the cost of living has very little to do with the government but rather from "the people" who demand these government measures be put in place. We, as American, are seeing a decrease to our risk tolerance thresholds. The return in the case is our utility (happiness) AND the money you save on toys when the user/purchaser of that toy/product/service absorbs the risk of that.

This is all I have time I have to explain it to you.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
09-12-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 10:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How are the provisions of a lien enforced under Swiss law?

This is pointless, no matter how often you ask the question, I just keep copying/pasting the same answer: “You don't get title and cannot transfer the property to a buyer or an heir without paying the lien including interest.”

See, no violence is involved. You want a deed (title) to the property? You want the government to record the transfer to a buyer or an heir? Then you pay the lien with interest. If you don't, then when you die the government will simply sell it. No guns needed.

(08-12-2013 10:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you don't pay the fine, you are... ?
(protip: the answer is not "you are fined ad infinitum without it ever being called due")

If you're so fucking clueless that you haven't noticed that all humans die eventually and thus the fines cannot accrue "ad infinitum", sorry, I can't help you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 09:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 06:22 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I don't think we have to increase the minimum wage.
There just should be a minimum income. Every person is guaranteed a minimum income that is enough
to survive, but not high enough to live comfortably. Wages at fast food chains would increase, because
otherwise there would not be a financial incentive for anyone to work there.
We already have a "minimum income", namely welfare. AFAIK, depending on the state and # of kids and programs, etc., welfare (ie the "minimum income") is around $1,000/month. The current "minimum wage" if you work 40 hours per week is $1,247/month ($7.25*40*4.3).
Perhaps if you have several kids you may get $1000. But I don't think
$1000 is enough to feed and shelter a whole family.
Quote:As far as I can tell you are proposing that we raise the "minimum income" (ie what you get from welfare) to be the same as the "minimum wage". If that happened, why would anybody work at all if the "minimum income" they got from sitting at home and playing XBox was the same as the "minimum income" they got from working full-time?
Well, we don't have enough jobs anyway. And if McDonalds cannot find anyone
to work for them, they would increase their wages. Why do you think
welfare recipients play XBox all day? There may be some who do, but is
that a fair characterization.
Quote:Or are you saying the "minimum income" only applies to people who work full-time? In that case it's just a monthly, rather than hourly, minimum, but if it's tied to full-time work, it's a fixed formula: [minimum wage/hour] * 40 hours/week * 4.3 weeks/year = [minimum income/month]. I don't see how that's any different than the current "minimum wage".
No, I really meant an income, regardless whether you work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  No no no. That's not how it works. You make the claim, YOU provide the data. Provide the data that, "and all the growth has been concentrated among the rich."

I have, repeatedly. You just choose to ignore it.

[Image: GiniLong2004.jpg]

The gini co-efficient measures how much of the wealth is concentrated among the rich. Why is it that through the 1950's and 60's it steadily dropped (meaning the poor and middle class were growing), and since around 1971, it's been steadily rising (meaning the growth is with the rich)? I will again ask for your opinion. What caused that reversal around 1971?

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Your statement that we've been in a trough for 42 years is patently false.

I said no strawmen please, and look what you did. If you were in a strong position, why do you need to make stuff up? You know I'm just going to say "copy/paste where I said that" and you're stuck. I never said that. YOU made the ludicrous statement that the reason the poor and middle class got stronger in the 1950's and 60's was because the economy was in a trough. All I did was ask you what you call the period since then.

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The greater the risk, the greater the return. The less risk, the less return. I'll come back to that.

ROFL. Here you actually did copy something I said earlier here and here. You take my point exactly and then repeat it back to me like you're teaching me something???

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not going to spoon feed you information. If you don't know what the characterists of a trough is, look it up.

Look, when I asked you why the poor and middle class gained ground during the 50's and 60's, your brilliant answer was that it's because it "was a trough". Like cjlr, you're making up your own definitions of words. No wonder you guys agree! In English, the word "trough" doesn't mean "the poor get richer". So I asked YOU to explain more about what YOU mean by the word "trough". YOU are the one who claimed "trough" explained the growth in the 50's and 60's.

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The answer to your question about what happened in the 1970s has a lot to do with the income tax rates...

From 1965 until 1981 the top marginal tax rate was unchanged at 70%. source

So your argument that the reversal in 1971 was because of a change of the tax rate shows a disconnect.

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The increase to the cost of living has very little to do with the government but rather from "the people" who demand these government measures be put in place.

Well our biggest expense is housing. See below. Housing prices were flat during the 1950's and 60's, but then started a roller coast right around 1971 (coincidentally the same year the gini coefficient began it's roller coaster). Switzerland, however, kept the same monetary policy the US had during the 50's and 60's through the 20th century, and, house prices remained flat the whole time, and the gini coefficient didn't shoot up either. You dismiss this and say it has little to do with the government and it's because of the people. In 1971 the American people decided to change. Ok, thank you for sharing that.

[Image: Inflation-Adjusted+Housing+Prices.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(09-12-2013 08:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 10:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How are the provisions of a lien enforced under Swiss law?

This is pointless, no matter how often you ask the question, I just keep copying/pasting the same answer: “You don't get title and cannot transfer the property to a buyer or an heir without paying the lien including interest.”

You're very special, friend.

Yes. Those are the provisions.

The question is: how are they enforced? Which is to say, why does anyone comply with them?

That is, we might note, a different question. It therefore does not have the same answer. It is furthermore not a difficult question. And yet you can't answer it.

(09-12-2013 08:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  See, no violence is involved. You want a deed (title) to the property? You want the government to record the transfer to a buyer or an heir? Then you pay the lien with interest. If you don't, then when you die the government will simply sell it. No guns needed.

And if you try to violate the provisions?

(09-12-2013 08:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If you're so fucking clueless that you haven't noticed that all humans die eventually and thus the fines cannot accrue "ad infinitum", sorry, I can't help you.

Hahaha. Oooh, you got me there, you wascally wabbit.

Oh, wait, no. That's an idiotic evasion.

How are the provisions of a lien enforced, buddy?

Here, I'll answer for you: state law enforcement reserve the right to use violence to handle worst-case non-compliance with the law. This is essentially the definition of a state. Switzerland is not an exception. I assure you they have a legal system. I further assure you they like to see their own laws obeyed.

Your statement,
"Switzerland never uses force with regards to tax collection",
is what we in the real world might call not true.

Your pants on head reality-denial notwithstanding.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-12-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 06:22 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I don't think we have to increase the minimum wage.
There just should be a minimum income. Every person is guaranteed a minimum income that is enough
to survive, but not high enough to live comfortably. Wages at fast food chains would increase, because
otherwise there would not be a financial incentive for anyone to work there.

What if this income meant for survival, is partly used on luxury, and those that depend on this guarantee of income demand more to fuel their decadent lifestyle? Stood with a can of lager in one hand, a cigarette in the other complaining that benefits are too low.

Wages at fast food chains depend on the amount of business at the fast food chain, if there is little or no business, there is little or no reason for them to employ people at all, for any wage. Fast food restaurant working should be considered a stop-gap position to keep food in the cupboard until a better job is found. (barring moving into fast food chain management)

I used to have a paper round, the money was horrific, I would never dream of trying to set up my life on the money it gave. I would certainly shy away from having a child whilst earning that much..

I hear people complaining there are no jobs available, yet when i open my local paper there are 2 pages full of positions, small ads and companies desperate for workers, we even have positions low, mid and high skilled here where I work. Yet we get few applicants, and most of those who turn up are not really bothered (bar the high skills) and barely try to pass the interview.

When I apply to positions I am told they have had 100's of applicants, when I offer a position I get 3-4 applicants. There is something wrong in society. Especially when i cant give away a 50k a year job. (twice the national average)

Its pathetic anyone in a low paid job feels the need to complain because they cant get off their lazy asses to find something better or the benefit scroungers complain there's nothing out there for them.

Its been said. All societies need toilet scrubbers, All societies need bin men.. and these jobs are generally above minimum wage or at least guaranteed hours working. Just because you cant get off your lazy asses to do something about it doesn't mean the government should put their hands in our pockets to fund the lifestyle they have chosen.

Sorry rant over.. Please continue this fine but confusing discussion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: