Subject:
|
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:38:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
527 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> How badly do you want out of your situation? McDonalds is hiring. Seriously.
> Your wife could presumably (if college educated or reasonably hard working,
> (and she must have been smart to select such as yourself Dave!)) become a
> manager in no time.
That's actually not true, or at any rate it's only true insofar as you can
become a manager in no time for $7.50 an hour or less, along with guaranteed
straight-rate overtime, minimal benefits, and minimal job security.
> > So here's my problem with the Spectator article. How the heck am
> > (hypothetical) I supposed to save $1000 a month when my optimum net income
> > (due to currently-unavoidable monthly expenses) is a little more than $200?
>
> What makes it *optimum*?
Given the structure as outlined, it's optimum. My wife (remember, this is a
hypothetical--I'm actually doing a good deal better than outlined for the
example) is unable to find work despite seeking it. But let's say that she
takes whatever job she can find, such as a night-manager at a convenience store
earning $8.00/hr. At 40 hours per week and conservatively assuming gross
taxation of 25%, she would net $960 each month--technincally just barely enough
to meet the Spectator's projection, but only if she doesn't have to pay more in
transportation costs, etc.
And even that's only assuming that the other conditions I've outlined remain
the same. If heating costs rise astronomically (as they will in the coming
winter), then the original $275 surplus will quickly go up the chimney.
Anyway, my underlying point is that the Conservative mocking of the lazy
impoverished beggar class is simply baseless, appealing to emotionalism rather
than reason.
> You have an additional source of income available to
> you. The person used in the example earlier does not so she's arguably a LOT
> worse off than you are.
Then she's a better hypothetical example, and in reality she's not all that
hypothetical.
> Before you turn your nose up at McDonalds...
Just to be clear, I'd like to nip that impression in the McBud. I worked (and
supported myself fairly comfortably) in the fast-food service sector for about
12 years, so I don't look down on people who choose that career path.
However, having worked in that field, I recognize that my current expenses
simply would scarcely be met even by full-time management (likely in excess of
60 hours per week with no overtime and limited benefits).
In fact, I've discovered that I tend to turn my nose up at people who
*haven't* worked in the service industry, because they tend to think that
service workers are mindless drones, and they treat them accordingly. Not
everyone, of course, but enough to be annoying.
> Things are tougher now than they were then. But a lot of that is due
> precisely to large government (and the oligopoly/welfarequeenism it seems to
> foster), the very thing we're debating, ne?
The problem isn't simply big government--it's big government completely in the
pocket of big corporations. Big government and big corporations can be fine, in
theory, as long as they keep their place (and "their place" is obviously an
additional source of debate!)
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
