maryann, I agree that there are other programs and services to provide help to those that truly need it, that are not government run. It is my belief that if the government would get out of the game those organizations would take up the slack and most likely do a better job.

b2b, in most cases having a car is not a basic necessity. Are there poor folks that live in the country and can't find work? Sure there are, but honestly they are not the ones the protesters in NY and elsewhere are talking about. A job that is not within walking distance has to be pretty far away. I met a man last year that lives in Placedo, does not have a car, and works in Victoria. Every day he walks, hitchhikes or bums rides. I have walked to jobs. I have taken the bus to work. Bikes are a lot cheaper than a car and the upkeep is way less. Americans have a love affair with their cars, but they are not a necessity.

Mr. Williams, please simmer down with the chest beating. Victoria has a public transit system. Could it be better? You bet it could, but having one is better than not. We didn't have one for years and years, and we were way past due when we finally put it in service. I think it's great. I see people using pretty often.
I agree that a lender turning someone down for a student loan and then approving them for a credit card for the same amount could be a little less than ethical, but is it illegal? I'm not an expert on the law so I can't say. I will say that the applicant is not forced to take the credit card, nor are they banned from approaching another lender. Did the student approach the financial aid department at school and request applications for grants and seek out other sources of money to pay for their education like scholarships? Also, perhaps the student didn't meet their qualifications with respect to the student loan. Some have minimum grade standards, minimum course load standards, etc. It's really hard to say whether or not the institution did anything wrong, or unethical, without knowing the whole truth.

By the way, I don't think I have once blamed the economy on Obama or the Dems. Feel free to look back at my comments and correct me if I'm wrong.

People are not being honest here. The reason why is because the protest and message doesn’t fit their conservative, southern narrative. It is foolish for a person to tell others that having a car isn’t a necessary, but yet still strongly desire people to work. Excuse me, but how can a person go to work and take care of his/her own family and have no transportation? I could understand if this was Houston or Austin with the bussing system. This is prime example of the I GOT MINE, GET YOURS mentality.

It also makes no sense for a lending company to denied someone a college loan for 1,500 but yet send that same person a credit card for the same amount with a higher interest rate. I do not hear Hole-in-1 talking about that. Excuse me for being grammar incorrect, but I have to say it……..”that ain’t right”! Everyone is on here talking about is how bad the economy under President Obama, but refuse to mention the genesis of the bad economy from Texas Senator Phil Gramm. Who I might add have been elected over and over since 1984. Where are the local conservatives talking about him? I won’t hold my breath for an answer.

Here is some advice and yall can take it or leave it. Most of yall who are bashing Jennifer Janak should read about the “Poor people’s march” of 1968.

holein1,

Why isn't a car necessary? How is one to get to their job if they don't live within walking distance of their job and very few do?
Since "most" people need reliable transportation to get to their job and it is often asked at job interviews, you have to add gas, insurance, upkeep...which by the way is really getting expensive.
Housing is going up if you rent, and property taxes are going up if you own your home. Utility prices are going up, food prices are going up, and the foods you listed are often cheaper than healthy food, which is why poor people eat so badly and have higher medical expenses. Insurance is going up. I can't think of one thing that isn't going up, overall. Cell phones are not mandatory, but most employers want to be able to get in touch with you if they need to. Home phones will do, but those aren't free either and it's counterproductive if you have to stay by the phone at home.
Very few families, who bring in $32,000 can make it in today's economy. They are one paycheck away from disaster is something unplanned happens, and it usually does. Parents who earn that can in no way prepare for their kid's college expenses, or plan for a sickness, or Lord forbid, they lose their job with nothing saved for a rainy day.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't think I could live on $32,000 and keep my sanity, hoping nothing goes wrong. There are just too many people walking on eggshells right now. They will not buy anything they do not need, which is sinking the economy. I'm one of those people who will not spend a penny that I don't need to. I don't trust anything about what is coming.

Holein1, you make some great points, particularly about it not being fair for children to go hungry. Then you specifically state, "I know there are government programs that will provide housing, food, medication, etc for people that can't afford the basics." We do have safety nets in this country, and not all of them are governmental.

All the items you mentioned about not being necessities are spot-on, though I might question the car. I can see both ways on that one.

When I was young, I saw many relatives do without the luxuries (HBO, vacations, air conditioning) to provide for their children in various ways, including clothing, food, and eventually college educations. I witnessed other relatives "blow and go" with little gazing at the future.

Today, I see those with the college education, tech school diplomas, or even school of hard work and hard knocks doing well as they learned from their parents how to sacrifice and work hard. They are still saving and preparing for the future. Bad health, unemployment, and misfortunes can always occur.

On the other side of the coin are the relatives who still live for the present moment, giving their kiddos and themselves all the latest in clothes, gadgets, etc. Not necessarily a bad thing when you can afford it, but going into debt for it is not preparing for the future.

These are historic times for us, and great teaching moments if you have children.

Mike, John and b2b, I didn't take a side or state my opinion on Mr. Simmons, but merely stated an observation that I thought was interesting. I agree that he did say that he would if everyone else does, but honestly isn't that just a cop-out? I have a lot of respect for Mr. Simmons and his brother. They both worked, and continue to work, very hard to get where they are, and in my opinion they have earned everything they have.

This is the point where I think ideologically some people can't get onboard with the occupiers or the anti-wealthy movement. With the exception of a small percentage, most of the so-called 1% or ultra-wealthy earned their money. They went to college, they went to grad school, and they put in the long hours at the office instead of being at home with their families. We're talking about people that work 60-80+ a week. Yes it is often in an air-conditioned office and not digging ditches or picking fruit, but that doesn't mean it's easy work.

B2b, your comment about sitting in a chair making calls was ignorant and insulting. I'm sure you feel the same way about surgeons or engineers.

I agree that it is unfair for a child to go hungry. I agree that someone who works 12 hours a day should be able to afford the basic necessities. I know there are government programs that will provide housing, food, medication, etc for people that can't afford the basics. Based on your example of 12-hour days, 7 days a week, that person would earn nearly $32,000 before taxes at minimum wage with no additional compensation for overtime. What basics are they doing without? I don't consider cable television, cell phones, fast food, processed prepackaged or prepared meals, a car, name brand clothing, soda, candy, name brand soap or hair products, nail jobs, salon appointments, pets or pet food to be basics. Do you agree with that statement?

legion,

Everything you said is true. Ordinary people are going to have to demand that it change, or it will never change. That bottom 90% or so, do not even understand the power that they have. If they decided they were going to do something about the present situation, they could move mountains, because strength is in numbers. That upper class does not have the numbers, they just have the more time and opportunity.

And before you say that President Obama tried to roll back President Bush s tax cuts, keep in mind that W. Buffet among other 1% s earn zero in normal salary income. W. Buffet said it himself, he earns zero salary for the work he does. He just takes advantage of the tax loopholes built into the tax system with all those pesky capital gains and such.

born2Bme,

I agree with you that the top1% or heck the top 3% should pay more taxes, but like W. Buffet said they take advantage of tax loopholes.

This whole "fair" talk is a distraction, it's even a distraction to say it's subjective. The people use the tools the government have given them.

Fair, reminds me of my kids... "But dad, that's not fair!"

Whoever said that life was fair? Who has ever promised that life would be a rose garden?

It is the way it is. Not one single politician has ever attempted to correct the ills you speak of.

holein1,

Fair is subjective. I'll tell you what fair isn't. Fair isn't when a man or woman works 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and then goes home and sees their children go hungry because they cannot afford the basics of life.
Fair isn't when someone earns their mega-bucks off of the backs of other people, while they sit in a chair all day long and make calls. Fair isn't expecting those that have nothing to shoulder more when it comes to taxes while those who are swimming in money don't have to pay a comparable tax rate.
Fair isn't watching a person have to decide between food, housing, medicine, or schooling, when the only big decicion those other people have is whether to buy a new car, or how many new cars they want to buy, or how much they can put away or move overseas for maximum return.
You want fair? Fair is demanding those upper elite pay comparable tax rates with the same kind of deductions that all those pay who have nothing to claim.
This Country will never get moving again while concentrating all the money at the top. The top 1% don't buy enough to keep the economy going. You have to get more money down to those who will spend it. That is about as simple as math can get.

holein1

Fair share cannot be put in literal terms. I would say the middle class is paying their "fair share" of taxes but their wages have been stagnant for while.

Russell Simmons which is one of many who are protesting against Wall Street but that tactic of saying that Mr. Simmons should write a check to the government and leave the rest of the millionaires and billionaires alone is missing the point. The larger point is to restructure our progression tax system, eliminating the loopholes the corporations and the wealthy are using, bring down the corporate rate, so just because some millionaires are trying to stroke their fellow millionaires and billionaires conscience, doesn't mean we need to discourage that.

I've heard Mark Cuban,Bill Gates, and of course Warren Buffett a say that many of his cohorts have not been asked to pay more, but it wouldn't bother them at all. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett already give half of their money away and now some are advocating just because they think paying a little more is a right thing to do some are mocking them for having that view. I think they're unselfish patriots.

I have heard a lot of people using the term "fair share" but what exactly is a "fair share" and how do you determine that?

John, are you really saying that unless we go back to spending with abandon and living on credit that unemployment will remain high and poverty will become an even bigger issue?

I saw something interesting the other day. Geraldo was conducting his show from the middle of the occupy Wall Street people. He had some detractors and some supporters giving their opinions. One was Russell Simmons, the multi-multi-millionaire who made his money from clothing, record producing, phone cards and a number of other ventures. He was taking the side of the occupiers and mentioned taxes. Another panelist, forgot his name, said that he should feel free to write a check if thinks that wealthy people don't pay enough. Mr. Simmons was quick to say "hell no". When pressed to say how much taxes he paid on a $100 Million from calling card business he made, he said none. He went on to say that he will continue to take a advantage of the loopholes until they close.

New regulations have no effect on business growth? Well, I guess that's news to Ben Bernanke, you know the chairman of the Federal Reserve ........ hmmmm, perhaps you've heard of him?

"People close to both Dimon and Bernanke say the Fed chairman agrees with the two main contentions Dimon made while speaking with the Fed chairman at a conference in Atlanta last week, namely that overly harsh new banking regulations in the Dodd/Frank financial reform law may be hindering economic growth as banks cut back on business lending, and the uncertainly of how the new rules will be written by Congress is also preventing banks from lending to businesses."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/20...

I know talking to local bankers that the new regulations will crush these smaller banks. Only large banks will be able to handle the staffing requirements and other costs to handle the new regulations in Frank'n Dodd.

But WTH we're just talking a few thousand or more jobs. A few thousands with banks and a few thousand with oil drilling and a few thousand with misguided investment in green energy - Solyndra anyone?

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren't hiring because there isn't enough consumer demand.
The conservative National Federation of Independent Business asks its small-business membership each month to name the single most important problem they're facing. Last month, the most common response was "poor sales," cited by 28 percent. Government regulation came in second, at 18 percent.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story/edit...

One- sided hypotheticals  will always get the desired results...:-)

holein1,

I said if "everyone" thought like that. Our economy depends on turnover of the dollar, which is why it is in the tank now.
People are either unable to buy, or are deciding not to. No demand, no new jobs.

b2b, are you saying that if people started living within their means that the economy would come to a screeching halt, or "there would be no economy"?

In the first comment on this letter you said, "what they want is the opportunity to earn their own money." Well, opportunity doesn't just present itself, it must be sought out. Sitting on your porch all day waiting for someone to offer you a job isn't going to work. Expecting someone to just give you a promotion because you've been there for ______ number of years isn't going to cut it.

SergeantJiggler,

What you say is true and my dad did the same thing, BUT, if everyone thought like that, there would be no economy. It takes people spending money to support businesses, and individuals, that hire people.

Everyone seems to think the government should be there to help when times get tough but what about the notion of helping yourself when times are good.

The oil boom of the 70's and 80's should have taught these lessons along with the dot com boom and even going back to the roaring 20's.

The more we make the more we spend and then when something happens and the income drops it's the government's responsibility to care for us all.

Why aren't/don't people put some aside for emergencies?

Is it because you can't watch it, see it or drive it?

My dad was laid off working for a home builder (funny term since he never got his job back) during the oil bust of the 80s and never went on unemployment. The main reason, he always, and still does, pay cash for everything, saves his money, doesn't need the latest and greatest gadget, appliance, vehicle,etc and also saved his money and invested for retirement because he didn't believe the government would be there for him when he decided to hang it up.

If times got real tough we got clothes from older cousins and didn't go on vacation. We as a family accepted those sacrifices.

He also worked at every job he could find or needed to to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. Bartending, construction, sales, home improvements, yard maintenance, furniture moving. Sometimes many at the same time.

You name it he did it and still had time for us kids (coaching, playing catch, family vacations).

It comes down to responsibility and accountability and not too many people today want either.

The real fight for freedom is not between 99% & 1%. It's between producers & those who want to live off others through force of government! Just find some YouTube videos of interviews with the protests, and see for yourself... They're a bunch of ignorant, uninformed, left, hypocrites that WANT more government control, more printed fiat money, and want to be taken care of by the government and want the government to force their beliefs on everyone...

Look, you can get PAID TO PROTEST! More proof it's all BS!
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov...

writein,

ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

BTW, writein, does MLK's family know you are using his likeness as your avatar?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washingt...

writein,

I generally make it a practice to avoid getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but to save you from suffering a coronary, I will reply to your questions.

No, I haven't "flew" to NYC to make my observations. I watch the news and read credible reports of thousands of these protestors being street bums and meth addicts scoring drugs at these protests. There are reports of many fugitives with warrants hiding out among these people. There are accounts of these people spreading feces on police cars, urinating in the streets, destroying property, etc. Even liberal politicians are now pleading that these people go home because they are doing more harm than good to their political futures.

I totally support their right to gather and voice their concerns. I happen to agree with a few of the "causes" these people are fighting for. But all this is doing is taking the media attention away from more important issues like Solyndra and Fast and Furious.

If these people really want jobs, maybe they should consider a career in the military. Great benefits, three meals a day.

So, writein, chill a little. Take your keyboard off all-caps lock.

BoStinks.

ANSWER THE QUESTION !!!!!!

BOSTINKS.

Since you put my name in this, I’ll bite.

You said, “The majority of them don't want jobs.”
Have you personally flew to NYC and talked to them? If not then you have no leg to stand on.

You said, “But W-O-R-K is a filthy four-letter word to these people.”
According to whom? Are you a mind reader?

You said, “I totally support their right to speech. But this is a union-supported event that includes professional protestors who have made the rounds all over the country speaking for various "causes" for years.”
Oh if you support their right to speak then why do you want to send them overseas to die via military draft?

Back in the 70's and early 80's the interest one could earn on their regular savings account was 8%, if I recall right. A person could do pretty well just using a regular savings account.
Savings accounts today earn between .1% and .5%. That's pretty sad. Seems that the powers-that-be do not want you trying to save your own money, they want access to everything you have.
I'm stubborn though. Everything I own is in FDIC protected accounts. I don't have a 401K. My accounts are not drawing much interest, but at least no one can take it away from me. I trust the government a whole lot more than I trust wall street.

A proff that taught economics at UT once pointed out in my class that there was not enough money for a World Market to sustain a three class systems.
Simply divide the money by the world population, just throw in china, india and there is not enough money to go around.

We came up with neat names of sub classess. (upper middle class, lower middle class, etc). Point is, there are the do's and donts. Period. Many of the people I see in new cars driving to the CLub and living the "good life" still have money woes and many are mortgaged to the hilt for their lifestyle. I fell into that trap years ago and will never go back.
As for the people who are marching on wall street, they are just wondering why their IRA's, 401k and other Gvt sactioned schemes have left them broke.
Wall Street was never meant to be a volitile security risk. Three percent above inflation used to make the stockholders happy.
Greed and "I want to be rich so I will get in the Stock market and I want a return on investment like my friend got with his Microsoft stocks", those are the illusions they bought.
A person asked me whats in my 401k and I answered cattle, mesquite and spring tomatoes.

Good thread!

I have worked many years in the manufacturing business. Since the 80's there has been a race to tap into the foreign markets of India, China and southeast Asia. When times were good CEO's made it clear in business strategy plans that they would not invest in the USA but instead invest in foreign markets for the best profit margins. Very intelligent American workers sat silently while their CEO's boasted of not creating good paying manufacturing jobs for future generations.
If you believe in the trickledown theory this is how it works. Give the business tax break and incentive money to my big company employer, and my company CEO will announce a new facility in China and the tax break money trickles to China.
The loss of good jobs started in the 80's, picked up speed in the 90's and was full speed at the year 2000.
After decades of investing heavily in China, the CEO's and big corporations are doing good and the Chinese government is doing good. It's the American worker who is not doing so good.
Look around Victoria and name one major manufacturing business start up the last 5 years? Many of you would immediately say Caterpillar but before you do, let me inform you that Caterpillar accepted $2.5 Billon in Obama stimulus money. Because we have Caterpillar in Victoria, and Caterpillar received stimulus money, how can smart people follow along with Rick Perry and other anti Obama clan, when they say that the stimulus did not create one single job?

Thanks Mike, you taught me something.

I was thinking that there was no way the tax in the 70s on $200k was 70%. You are correct, as long as we are talking about the marginal tax and the actual 70% tax is on an amount of income between $150k and $200k (for instance). The effective tax rate would be something lower (but still higher than that today I think).

The other thing to think about is that correcting for inflation, $200k in the 70s would be equivalent to $1000k today. But your point about what we could buy back then is understood.

I talk the way I do because I can only speak about those people I know personally who are unemployed. I know people who want a job so bad, but cannot find one. I know people who are on unemployment, are trying to get off, but cannot find a job, or the jobs they do find don't even pay what they are getting on unemployment. I know people who are handicapped, had jobs, but lost them when the economy got bad. They had no choice but to apply for disability.
I know one person that works 7 days a week, and on his days off and after work, does yard work, and cannot make ends meet. People just don't want to pay anything anymore. They expect to pay Americans what they pay illegals. They expect you to use your gas to get to their homes, use up your equipment, and then want to pay per job, even if the job takes all day. Kind of sucks when you work so hard and you are losing money to try and please people by doing a job that is far above what they get elsewhere and it still doesn't matter.

vet43

Great post.

I believe were about the same age where we can remember the 70s where we were making a good wage the company also paid us great benefits. The tax on the wealthy was about 70% on those making $200,000 or more. Of course the wealthy weren't paying the 70% but at those rates they reinvested in the company rather than giving to Uncle Sam. Back then the middle class worker was able to go on vacations, had a hunting cabin, and could afford a pretty good house and automobile. They kept the money in circulation right here in the good old USA.

Good point on the unions because the local petrochemical companies paid the good salaries to deter a union. The CEO of GM will structure a contract with the unions where both will share in the good times and bad times. 21st century unions do not have to mimic the corrupt unions of the past. There are those that believe that companies will do the right thing but don't believe their fellow man will. Of course they don't have the privilege of sitting on board meetings when decisions are made and most make their decision based on backyard gossip.

I don't think the unemployed are bad people because as I've said I'm nothing special but if I was unemployed, I would rather have a job because unemployment benefits and public assistance is not forever. Many people are just one business decision from being out of work.

Yes, what those on Wall Street did might not be illegal but we will never know nor we can we get past the lobbyist, to pass laws to prevent that from happening again.

It was the same way during the Great Depression where people who couldn't rub two nickles together were blaming those who were less fortunate than them. They quickly found out that all the wealth was accumulating at the top and not trickling down to them. The wealthy can only buy so much and then they reinvest in the global economy.

Quote from writein in response to me claiming he likes to play the race card:

"I do not know what card game you are playing. I play poker…not gold fish."

This is too easy.

I don't think anyone ruffles at the thought of helping the woman who finds herself alone with 1+ kids, the man who is laid off and can't find work, or the family that is affected by illness. Its the ones who make no effort at all that frustrates most. It's the ones who want it all for nothing. Why should I work, budget, miss time with my kids, and stress just to pay for someone else to sit at home and live off my taxes and be proud of it. And no this does not apply to everyone who receives help but there is a large population who have this attitude. The American Dream is something to strive for not sit and wait for it to be given to you.

I am not an economist (or someone that can be trusted with a checkbook) but I do have some observations regarding minimum wage vs. fair wage.

The minimum wage is dictated by law. A fair wage is what Acme Widget will pay a person for the skills to produce a cost effective widget and make a profit.

Now if Acme makes huge profits because the skilled workers are very good at thier jobs there should be a reasonable expectation of shared success. When the company pays outragous sums of money to the CEO or CFO and the folks on the bench are stuck with leftovers one can see where a union might be not a bad idea.

I was raised to believe that good people will do the right thing but we find that sometimes becoming very successful, wealthy and powerful has been done at the expense of intergity, honesty and good ethics.

As President Obama said yesterday when asked why no one has gone to jail over the excess shown by Wall Street, "What was done may not have been illegal but it was immoral".

I wonder if the thin air at the "top" has any effect on a persons common decency?

holein1

You have to take in consideration that we are polar opposites(fortunate for you) therefore you can never come to the conclusion that we will have the same train of thought. Having said that,I understand the points you are making. We won't ever reconcile those differences in this forum, so the only option we have is to argue about the math and substantiated facts.

In other words, for every argument we make; there will be a counterargument ,if it's based on hearsay, personal experience, observation or ideology.... Don't you think?

holein1

It was started back in 1938 so I guess the intent was classic Keynesian economics', a theory based on the principle that if businesses and consumers are not spending; then it's up to the government to prime the pump. It's the opposite of laissez-faire where that basic theory is that the market will always sell correct and police itself.

Well I agree with B2B, I couldn't live on the minimum-wage without greatly sacrificing everything I have worked for. Programs cost money and there is a concerted effort to get rid of them not because we can't afford them but because of our priorities. For example, a new star wars defense system would more than likely get funded, by defunding a social program because the poor do not have a lobbyist.

The statement(taxes,unions,etc) I made was intentionally rhetorical because I was making a broader statement. Some seem to have empathy for big business ,yet they don't share that for the less fortunate.

My parents never did get public assistance and neither did I, but it was more about luck than anything else. I have never been laid off and I was fortunate enough to work for a company that paid me a decent wage and benefits. I was lucky that they accepted my application because I'm not that special. Some people are not that lucky and others make their luck by applying themselves, as I'm sure you and others have.

How do I know that the minimum wage will not supply the basic necessities? I used to do the math for my children and grandchildren and at work to prove my point. I used conservative estimates such as housing, a car (as you know an older car brings you a higher maintenance cost) insurance, taxes, food, utilities, education, and unforeseen expenses such as a walk in clinic. It's OK for a student or a single person and I agree it might be a motivator but it also causes stress.

Mike, you're a pretty smart guy, I'm sure if you try you could take a guess as to the intent of min wage.

What meaning did you get from B2B comment? What I got was pretty well stated, "I've done everything right, but could not live on minimum wages. Minimum wage is not doable in today’s economy if you want a roof over your head and a vehicle to get yourself to work and back." That's what I was calling BS on. Also, that's why I mentioned luxury vs. necessity. Having a roof over your head is a necessity, owning it is not and having a car is not.

If, as you said, a single mom can't make it on min wage then doesn't she owe it to herself and her kids to do everything she can to get out of the min wage job and into a better paying one? There are plenty of programs that are designed for that very thing, but that too requires effort. Worked for my mother, who was a single mom of 3 in the early 70's and did not qualify for any public assistance. Play the victim and you will continue to be the victim.

If you want to know what I think about taxes, unions, etc. just ask. I don't think I have stated my position on any of those issues.

kash

Determining what a fair wage is usually determined by the market. Our local petrochemical employees start at over $20.00 an hour but I believe we have more minimum-wage jobs. We mustn't forget that large franchises will find ways not to pay their employees benefits by limiting their hours, so the working extra hours does not always apply.

We have about ~ 171 million jobs and are available and our population is around ~ 308 million(and growing, adding new people to the job market everyday) and growing every day, we need to employ about 300,000 a month yet will only added about 103,000 last month. We're going to stay this way until demand picks up, so it's not always about the lazy unemployed. We are in a global economy where the problems in Greece will affect us directly.

I don't know about a generation who are picky, you might be right, but those jobs have a high turnover rate because Americans want to advance and not settled for minimum wage.

holein1,

Unfortunately, you cannot speak for everyone, but owning a car when you live in the country, ten miles from any town, IS a necessity.
To you renting from someone who can raise your rent at any time they want to, or sell it out from under you, or ask you to leave, is better than owning your own home? The costs I incure for owning my home are less than what I would pay, paying rent.

No, I'm not single. With the rising cost of food, insurance, taxes, automobile expenses, childcare, healthcare, utilities, etc., how is anyone supposed to make it on that? One flat tire, or other car breakdown, can devastate.
Of course, minimum wage is supposed to be a starting point, but with the way companies are acting today, that is all they want to pay people. The ones who don't even want to pay that, move overseas.
Most of the unemployed are looking at those kinds of jobs, which is why they opt to go the other way. Those jobs are not stable.
I see people on this forum, and I hear people complaining about all the people sucking off the govermnent, but what are they supposed to do when the job market cannot support them all? There simply are not enough jobs available for everyone that wants to work and needs a livable wage.
Should they leave the security of a sure thing and hope they can make enough to feed their family, or risk ending up in the streets? That's a hard call for anyone to make when they face the possibility of look into their childrens eye and seeing hunger.

I guess I am asking how do you determine what a fair wage is? Exactly what at what limit are the basics? Some people's basics are what others consider luxuries--cellphone, cable, having a car. How much should a burger flipper make? Min. wage at $7.25 is $1160 a month if you work 40 hours. I lived off min. wage for 3 years while in college with no outside help. If you want to make more, you work toward making more. I agree, right now some jobs are harder to come by but we have a generation who are picky. When you need to eat a job is a job.

holein1

That was a good motivator but Today we have a situation where their six applicants for every job and our current skills don't match up to the job requirements. We have several people that have been unemployed for over year but they no longer have the luxury of moving to another state because their home is under water. They would take a big hit by selling their home. Victoria is not a good indicator of what's happening nationally.

We seem to forget that in the last quarter of 2008 we were losing 500,000 to 750,000 jobs a month, companies are not hiring those that have been unemployed for over six months, they have also found ways to use technology to cut on their payroll. BUT the biggest problem is demand because I still see lines and lines of unemployed people waiting outside in the cold for the few jobs that are available. It may be the same footage running in a continuous loop but I still think that not wanting to work is the exception rather than the rule.

Again,we can't take the consumer out of the formula for economic success;those big ticket items will stay in the warehouse Unless we find the equilibrium between a profitable company and a decent living wage.

Did you see where some people were working for free just to keep their health care? That was a plan that helped the struggling company and it's employes.

holein1

You got me on the minimum wage because I have never worked for minimum-wage but that was just luck. I've got to believe that you are not painting the unemployed with a broad brush.That would be equivalent to kicking a person while they are down.

I didn't get the same meaning from born2Bme post because she is not a supporter of the social programs.She know there is too much fraud. She like me, is not for a culture of dependance,I guess unless it's in countries we invade. She has stated this over and over throughout the years. We both have done the math,so we to know that a single mom with a couple kids will go further into poverty on the minimum wage, while she's working a couple jobs(minimum-wage) that money goes to babysitters and other necessities leaving her no time to enroll in a community college.

These people are dissatisfied that BO hasn't handed them even more entitlements. They are the socialist fringe that elected BO in the first place and will not be happy until there is total redistribution of wealth in this country.

The majority of them don't want jobs. They want benefits without having to punch a timeclock. They want free education? Then work hard and get an academic scholarship. But W-O-R-K is a filthy four-letter word to these people.

I totally support their right to speech. But this is a union-supported event that includes professional protestors who have made the rounds all over the country speaking for various "causes" for years.

Many of these 20-somethings get in their daddy's BMWs and Mercedes' and drive back to their CEO daddy's homes in the Hamptons each night. What hypocrisy.

How I wish we still had the draft.

I don't know what the intent of the minimum wage but it was part of the 1938 New Deal which was designed to get us out of our economic mess.The current law exempts agriculture and the restaurant industry. The government has only raised the minimum wage up four times since 1997. The minimum wage was $5.15 then and it is now $7.25. Doesn't sound like much,but when the federal minimum wage went from $5.15 to $7.25,that extra $2 and change translates into a yearly raise of some $4,400 for a full-time minimum-wage worker, nosing his or her family of four above the poverty line. Getting people above the poverty line has always been the goal. When President Reagan signed the EITC bill he said “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family,the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress."

http://tinyurl.com/3jwrj9a

When President Clinton signed a law saying that states can set their own minimum wage as long as it was higher than the Federal minimum wage, several states did that Washington minimum-wage is $8.67 an hour, Oregon is 8.50, Illinois it is a $8.25 and California's is$8.00.

When I was vacationing in Chicago the city was trying to keep Wal-Mart outside the city limits because they did not want to comply with the inside the business district minimum-wage of $10.00 an hour.

I believe it was born2Bme that brought up the Henry Ford scenario. Henry Ford like Steve jobs was a visionary who knew he couldn't increase the sales of his product unless he found a way to make it available to his workers(middle class) who were already making more money than they could in other industries. People seem to forget that this country needs consumers as well as innovators and big business.

I just don't get it,for some we can't tax big business,shouldn't have a minimum wage ,absolutely no unions, and scaled back EPA regs,....It's no surprise why wealth is concentrated at the top as it was in the 1929 Great Depression.

plenty of jobs out there for people that want to work (not sit behind a desk all day)

Well stated Sugar.

When I started working I looked at minimum wage as a motivator to work hard and expand my knowledge. If I didn't, then I knew exactly what I was going to make. B2b you are saying that it is now a motivator to keep people on unemployment and welfare. That is truly sad. You pointed out something very disturbing about where America is today, we have people that would rather take handouts and do nothing than work because they feel like they deserve more. Well, if you deserve more then prove it by working.

I call BS on you B2B. I find it hard to believe that you couldn't make it on minimum wage if what you say is true about your expenses.

Oh, and another thing, having a car and owning a home is not a right or even a necessity, it's a luxury and the quicker we get back to knowing the difference between a necessity and a luxury the better.

born2beme - you see, that's just it. The minimum wage was NEVER meant to be a LIVING wage for households. Minimum wage was never meant to support a FAMILY on one income. Minimum wage is just a stopgap measure. You are telling me that (and I am assuming here, so please forgive my assumptions if they are wrong) you, a single person (yes?), with no mortgage, car note, beauty parlor bills, etc. CANNOT live on $7 and some odd cents' wage? Oh, and I hear minimum wage may be going UP, UP, UP again to over NINE dollars? If a person does not have to support a family or pay for a house or car, why isn't minimum wage cutting it?

If someone does have to support a family, then obviously minimum wage will not be enough. IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE. The more the minimum wage increases, the more the professional is devalued. Professionals do NOT get increases every few years, just because the government feels like throwing them a bone. As I watch the debates about increasing the minimum wage, I see my paycheck remaining more or less stagnant in comparison, with measly merit increases DURING A GOOD YEAR for business. The gap is closing between minimum-wage earners and higher level professionals, income-wise. This sickens me.

Minimum wage was NEVER meant to be a living wage.

VBB,

I'm one of those that can squeeze blood out of a turnip if need be, but I couldn't even survive on minimum wages. I don't own a cell phone, I drive older vehicles that are over 10 years old, very seldom buy clothes and the ones I do buy, I buy on sale or at resale shops. Don't wear makeup, or get hair cuts. I wear it long and straight, wash and wear. My house has been paid for, for over 10 years. I've done everything right, but could not live on minimum wages.
Minimum wage is not doable in todays economy if you want a roof over your head and a vehicle to get yourself to work and back.
I can see why so many people opt to stay on unemployment, or go on welfare. At least they know they will be able to survive and feed their kids.
Of course, I know there are cheaters and I wish that would be dealt with, but shrinking the size of the watchdog agencies is counterproductive.

If people would live within their means as opposed to keeping up with the Jones's then you would be amazed at the amount you can live on. Instead everyone wants the brand new nice car, newest cell phones, computers, 400 channels on cable, designer clothes, etc.....why should anyone else be expected to pay for someone elses luxuries?

This Letter is prime example of the GOT MINE,GET YOURS/ HANG THEM HIGH MENTIALITY. If Mrs. Jennifer Janak was a Conservative Tea Partier most people on here who praise her for being an honorable stay-at-home mother. Since she is taking a position that doesn’t support Conservatism, she is now branded as a jobless, whiney, wealth fare queen.
The irony of it all.

Mr. Williams

Oh, and kash, if more people could find a job that they could survive on, then those who work wouldn't have to help those who don't.

fair wage is compensation for knowledge, productivity, working in dangerous situations. It's a livable wage in today's economy. Can anyone survive on minimum wages today if they are a one-job household? Minimum wage barely pays for their housing, then you have food, utilities, healthcare, transportation, clothing. YOu know, the basics.

How do we determine a fair wage? Maybe we could quit expecting those who work to support those who don't?

A corporation that does not give a dang about human beings will quickly find itself out of business for lack of employees.

What they want is the opportunity to earn their own money. Unfortunately, big business is only interested in the bottom line, so they take the jobs overseas, move offshore to hide from taxes, and do not support America or it's workers, yet expect those same people to buy their sub-par products made with slave labor, and often child labor, overseas.
Try not to paint everyone with the same brush. There "are" people over here who want to work, but they want fair wages for the work they are expected to do, not be slave labor for some big corporation that doesn't give a dang about human beings.