 | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| (...) Larry, Anyone making $60 an hour is indeed a lucky person. Considering that minimum wage is only around $5.25 and most people consider a $10 an hour job doing well. No hard feelings intended here....but some of us have to work 3 hours for that (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| (...) Heh, I hear you. I'm still (for the time being) very "blue collar" pay-wise at my current FTJ (full-time job). But on my last consulting job I think I would have had to work about 17.14 minutes for that CD player. Can't (or at least haven't (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| (...) Your point is well taken, although I'd go farther and say that 10 an hour isn't considered by everyone as 'doing well', if that's the wage that a single wage earner is making. It is HARD to get by on 400 a week pretax (that's about 20K a (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| First, no offense was intended in my original statement and none was taken by me with regard to Pat's response. Nor should any be taken by the below. One point I forgot to make though. (...) I'm not sure (and this IS .debate, after all) that luck (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| No, it's bloody IMPOSSIBLE to get by on $400/week POST-tax in my area, unless you have multiple earners in a household. With rents at $1200+ for any area short of slums around here, $400/wk barely pays the rent. Don't get me started on that :-/ (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:3870F1E0.8D1B0D...ger.net... (...) Peh..:-) Slightly less then 1000$ (after tax) per month is just my income, and yes I'm not a blue collar, actually a relatively well earning white..:-) (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
