Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Replies
-
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
But we need people to work at Art Galleries, don't we? Do Art Gallery workers deserve health care less than you or me?
Do we? Really, we need people to work there? How about the art gallery worker is a young, healthy college student who needs to work part time due to school, is an art major, and plans to seek a job in advertising or graphic design after college. Art gallery need satisfied? Nope, because there's just some other part-time minimum wage job that you're going to throw out next. Look, I don't see it as a matter of deserving or not deserving. It's a matter of grow the *kitten* up, work for what you want, and take care of yourself. And, if you want to take half of your income and pay for someone you consider less fortunate to have better healthcare, go for it. But, if I work hard for my income and benefits, I should not be FORCED to pay for someone else who chooses not to. That should be my choice.
So people who work in Art Museums don't work hard?
(it may help to note the treasured cultural art/architecture monument behind my profile picture)
How the *kitten* would I know? But, I know that I DO. And, I know that I EARN what I get. But, by your suggested logic, they DESERVE part of my earnings. Um, no. But sounds like they DESERVE part of yours.
I have not once even attempted to imply that you don't earn your money. And I sincerely apologize if that is what you read in my responses and questions. I find it interested, however, that that's what you read in my replies.
You may want to spend more time in Art Museums.
One thing I learned from studying history and art was that when a society is stratified, there's always an incentive for people in higher rungs to prove they belong there and prove others don't.3 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.2 -
Do not patronize me. I am an educated person who enjoys art. And you are again twisting this to make it seem I was saying something different. I know that you didn't imply I don't earn my money. You did, however, imply that because I said I earn my money I was implying by default that the art gallery worker does not. I don't imply by default. I say what I mean. And, I am saying that if you choose to be a part-time employee earning minimum wage, and you've chosen to do so because that job fulfills you in some non-monetary way, don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.1
-
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think my position is quite logical. However, yours seem to be built on twisting logical statements into vaguely perceived insults.0 -
Can we get married?I wonder what kind of innovation we'd see as a country if people felt less tied to jobs they hated. I wonder what changes would come to certain industries if they lost the hook their job benefits held on people.
Idealistically, that's a good rhetorical question. Realistically, it's Maslow's Pyramind of Needs.
Most people on the planet are on the bottom two tiers trying to get basic (physical) and safety needs met. That's why they take grunt jobs for the insurance and it's perfectly understandable if one has been there. (I'm not saying you haven't - I'm just speaking generally.) The higher people move up this pyramid, the easier it is for them to forget when they were on the bottom two tiers.
And for some people, especially in wealthier nations, the bottom two needs were met by their parents and continued to be as they developed into adulthood. They moved rather effortlessly up through the higher tiers through no personal merit, just by luck of the draw. It's not something they ever really thought about, as it was built right into their lives from the beginning.
Anyhow, as far as my answer is relevant to this thread without descending into political views, I think getting basic healthcare needs met is at the bottom of this tier. Basic. Even for fat people. A fat person may develop cancer, heart disease or high blood pressure, but proving conclusively that obesity was the sole cause isn't really possible.0 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think my position is quite logical. However, yours seem to be built on twisting logical statements into vaguely perceived insults.
My stance comes from the belief that it is most ethical to take care of the young, elderly and sick in a society. That it is the moral imperative of the "haves" to recognize that some people didn't start as close to the finish line as they did.5 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think her answer was a good one. You asked her who deserved what. She said how the kitten would she know.
Someone who has the luxury to choose a minimum wage job in exchange for art love is probably in a pretty good position overall, but then again, what do I know about it? I prefer to choose work offering what amounts to a living wage (for me), which is a challenge because I hold no college degrees. But over the years I found a way to do it.
If I love art, or cooking, or sewing, or dog grooming I'll pursue those interests before or after work. I wouldn't limit myself to a minimum wage job in pursuit of those interests because it would not make any sense for me to do that. Or I would be unwilling to pay the consequences of making such a choice for art love, or jewelry making love, or ballroom dancing love or whatever.
Exactly so: And, if you accept X dollars for Y work at Z job, YOU have determined for yourself what you DESERVE.0 -
And even in 1996, I in speeches propose the following amendments to the Constitution:
Article XXVIII: Every newborn shall be sincerely welcomed and cared for until maturity.
Article XXIX: Every adult who needs it shall be given meaningful work to do, at a living wage.
-Kurt Vonnegut
Yeah, that's great and all, but realistically not possible. Since when is anything in life ever ideal ? Who's mom didn't teach them "life's not fair"?1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »And even in 1996, I in speeches propose the following amendments to the Constitution:
Article XXVIII: Every newborn shall be sincerely welcomed and cared for until maturity.
Article XXIX: Every adult who needs it shall be given meaningful work to do, at a living wage.
-Kurt Vonnegut
Yeah, that's great and all, but realistically not possible. Since when is anything in life ever ideal ? Who's mom didn't teach them "life's not fair"?
Kurt Vonnegut's?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?0 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think my position is quite logical. However, yours seem to be built on twisting logical statements into vaguely perceived insults.
My stance comes from the belief that it is most ethical to take care of the young, elderly and sick in a society. That it is the moral imperative of the "haves" to recognize that some people didn't start as close to the finish line as they did.
I believe the same. Some do not believe that. I just happen to believe this should be a personal choice (who we take care of), and not happen by force. Local communities, specifically the charitably minded, are more likely to be able to see someone's need than some bureaucrat whose best interest is served by maintaining or growing the number of "needy" in order to grow or maintain his or her own job. The force is the part I disagree with.
ETA: bureaucratic systems of forced giving lead to abuse of said giving. It becomes "government money", and the abusers don't see or don't care that the government took that money from a family that worked hard for it.0 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think my position is quite logical. However, yours seem to be built on twisting logical statements into vaguely perceived insults.
My stance comes from the belief that it is most ethical to take care of the young, elderly and sick in a society. That it is the moral imperative of the "haves" to recognize that some people didn't start as close to the finish line as they did.
I believe the same. Some do not believe that. I just happen to believe this should be a personal choice (who we take care of), and not happen by force. Local communities, specifically the charitably minded, are more likely to be able to see someone's need than some bureaucrat whose best interest is served by maintaining or growing the number of "needy" in order to grow or maintain his or her own job. The force is the part I disagree with.
So our general schism in policy is more about who's best able to decide how the care is parceled? As in, is it the church, local communities, non-profit boards, bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, small business owners, lawyers, doctors, etc., who of those are the most qualified to decide how the public care is parceled?0 -
Do not patronize me. I am an educated person who enjoys art. And you are again twisting this to make it seem I was saying something different. I know that you didn't imply I don't earn my money. You did, however, imply that because I said I earn my money I was implying by default that the art gallery worker does not. I don't imply by default. I say what I mean. And, I am saying that if you choose to be a part-time employee earning minimum wage, and you've chosen to do so because that job fulfills you in some non-monetary way, don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.
Just wondering if you pay in to social security. Pretty sure that money is going to people who are on SS right now and not being saved for you or anyone else like it's supposed to be.
I think I get the jist/gist of your posts - get a job, suck it up, and deal with it (sans the whining).0 -
Do not patronize me. I am an educated person who enjoys art. And you are again twisting this to make it seem I was saying something different. I know that you didn't imply I don't earn my money. You did, however, imply that because I said I earn my money I was implying by default that the art gallery worker does not. I don't imply by default. I say what I mean. And, I am saying that if you choose to be a part-time employee earning minimum wage, and you've chosen to do so because that job fulfills you in some non-monetary way, don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.
Just wondering if you pay in to social security. Pretty sure that money is going to people who are on SS right now and not being saved for you or anyone else like it's supposed to be....
If my understanding of SS is correct, the part time art museum worker if they work there their whole life still would probably qualify for full SS credit at retirement age, right? I mean, once you have 40 "credits" (or whatever it is) you get benefits at retirement, right? This seems to me to be a public policy that treats nearly every job as equivalent "effort" meriting the benefits of the system. (I say nearly every job because I believe there are kinds of employment where you don't pay into the SS system. Or at least there used to be.)0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer? I know why. It is because you assume that the ditch digger is unhappy. I disagree on that automatic assumption. Some people thrive on a simpler existence. And before every person on this thread jumps on me, know that I am not a wealthy person, and I did not come from some privileged background.2 -
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
But we need people to work at Art Galleries, don't we? Do Art Gallery workers deserve health care less than you or me?
Do we? Really, we need people to work there? How about the art gallery worker is a young, healthy college student who needs to work part time due to school, is an art major, and plans to seek a job in advertising or graphic design after college. Art gallery need satisfied? Nope, because there's just some other part-time minimum wage job that you're going to throw out next. Look, I don't see it as a matter of deserving or not deserving. It's a matter of grow the *kitten* up, work for what you want, and take care of yourself. And, if you want to take half of your income and pay for someone you consider less fortunate to have better healthcare, go for it. But, if I work hard for my income and benefits, I should not be FORCED to pay for someone else who chooses not to. That should be my choice.
60% of people working for minimum wage are adults with families. After putting in 40-60 hours per week, they still (without the ACA in the the U.S.) could not afford regular health care insurance.
This is a privileged, elitist viewpoint.
Repeat after me... "I got mine, Jack."6 -
Do not patronize me. I am an educated person who enjoys art. And you are again twisting this to make it seem I was saying something different. I know that you didn't imply I don't earn my money. You did, however, imply that because I said I earn my money I was implying by default that the art gallery worker does not. I don't imply by default. I say what I mean. And, I am saying that if you choose to be a part-time employee earning minimum wage, and you've chosen to do so because that job fulfills you in some non-monetary way, don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.
Just wondering if you pay in to social security. Pretty sure that money is going to people who are on SS right now and not being saved for you or anyone else like it's supposed to be.
I think I get the jist/gist of your posts - get a job, suck it up, and deal with it (sans the whining).
Sure I pay, it's the law just like ACA. Doesn't make it right. And yes, you got the gist of it. I get so sick of people saying what WE should do with OUR money. And, every time I hear someone whining about how something should be free because we all DESERVE it, I want to scream "There is no free lunch! If the café owner gave you a "free lunch", it still wasn't FREE! It either cost the café owner out of his or her family's pocket, or it cost the future patrons because the café owner raised his or her prices to cover the cost!" But this isn't a café, and I can't simply take my business elsewhere if the owner tries to pass on the cost to me.0 -
Ah, sorry to go back to your previous statement. I just wanted to get a clarification. You feel that medical needs are a monetary cost? Like, I'm saying, of course medical treatment costs money. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking you if you feel medical needs are considered a "monetary cost" of an individual?... don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.0 -
I think no matter what you think ACA didn't satisfy anyone. It's not really socialized medicine and it's not private. That is where the problem lays. It's kinda half-a$$ed. You HAVE to have insurance. You can't opt-out without a fine. But it's not just automatically being taken out of taxes as a whole. It'd dependent on the individual or individual's employer to come up with the premium money and only after the fact can you wait nearly a year to get a tax credit...if you qualify. That's pretty wishy washy to me.
I'm all for less government, but seriously if we are gonna do this we need to jump right in. We would also need to start regulating fee ranges for medical services. I'm all for open markets, but the amount that can be charged for some services is simply ridiculous.
Last year I took my 5 year to the ER because he whacked his head on a table. (his head is in the 95th percentile at 5, freakin huge). It looked like it needed stitches. 2 hours later I walked out with a kid that just had his skin glued shut, no stitches, and a bill for $600 after my insurance. They basically did the equivalent of sticking a fancy band aid on this kid's head. The fee without insurance was like $4,000. Ridiculous.1 -
60% of people working for minimum wage are adults with families. After putting in 40-60 hours per week, they still (without the ACA in the the U.S.) could not afford regular health care insurance.
This is a privileged, elitist viewpoint.
Repeat after me... "I got mine, Jack."[/quote]
Privileged, elitist? Nope. This is the viewpoint of a person who made responsible choices and changed her circumstances. I was an adult with a minimum wage job. Since that was not the greatest way to support a family, I put off having one until I changed my circumstances. Once again, that is what responsible adults do. Those adults with families earning minimum wage are victims of their own choices.
Privileged, elitist?! You have got to be kidding me. You know what is privileged and elitist? Someone using the force of law to enact moral dictates on everyone else because they think their morals and opinions are better, more important or right than others.11 -
Ah, sorry to go back to your previous statement. I just wanted to get a clarification. You feel that medical needs are a monetary cost? Like, I'm saying, of course medical treatment costs money. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking you if you feel medical needs are considered a "monetary cost" of an individual?... don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.
Go back to the previous discussion about how employers factor insurance into the cost of compensating employees and adjust their wages accordingly for more clarification.0 -
Ah, sorry to go back to your previous statement. I just wanted to get a clarification. You feel that medical needs are a monetary cost? Like, I'm saying, of course medical treatment costs money. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking you if you feel medical needs are considered a "monetary cost" of an individual?... don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.
Go back to the previous discussion about how employers factor in insurance into the cost of compensating employees and adjust their wages accordingly for more clarification.
Sorry, can you link me to it? I've been with this thread the whole time, was it on this specific thread or the other one?
I'm asking because I just wondered if you felt that medical care was "optional." Like, just to use different words here, "shelter" is something I feel is a moral requirement to provide to all citizens. "A McMansion" is not something I consider a moral imperative.
So similarly, I was trying to understand if you feel "medical needs" fall closer to the "shelter" part or the "McMansion" part.
Honestly, if you took offense at anything I said, I hope you realize no one is attacking YOU. Just debating an idea.0 -
Ah, sorry to go back to your previous statement. I just wanted to get a clarification. You feel that medical needs are a monetary cost? Like, I'm saying, of course medical treatment costs money. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking you if you feel medical needs are considered a "monetary cost" of an individual?... don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.
Go back to the previous discussion about how employers factor in insurance into the cost of compensating employees and adjust their wages accordingly for more clarification.
Sorry, can you link me to it? I've been with this thread the whole time, was it on this specific thread or the other one?
I'm asking because I just wondered if you felt that medical care was "optional." Like, just to use different words here, "shelter" is something I feel is a moral requirement to provide to all citizens. "A McMansion" is not something I consider a moral imperative.
So similarly, I was trying to understand if you feel "medical needs" fall closer to the "shelter" part or the "McMansion" part.
Honestly, if you took offense at anything I said, I hope you realize no one is attacking YOU. Just debating an idea.
My specific point about MONETARY costs was relative to employment. (Easier to summarize than to go back and link). I choose to work for an employer who provides coverage. I realize this is factored into my compensation package, and so I earn a lower wage than if the employer did not provide this benefit. Now with ACA, I also get to help finance the insurance plans of others. I personally do believe the sick and seriously ill should be treated. I disagree with forced insurance.1 -
Ah, sorry to go back to your previous statement. I just wanted to get a clarification. You feel that medical needs are a monetary cost? Like, I'm saying, of course medical treatment costs money. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking you if you feel medical needs are considered a "monetary cost" of an individual?... don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.
Go back to the previous discussion about how employers factor in insurance into the cost of compensating employees and adjust their wages accordingly for more clarification.
Sorry, can you link me to it? I've been with this thread the whole time, was it on this specific thread or the other one?
I'm asking because I just wondered if you felt that medical care was "optional." Like, just to use different words here, "shelter" is something I feel is a moral requirement to provide to all citizens. "A McMansion" is not something I consider a moral imperative.
So similarly, I was trying to understand if you feel "medical needs" fall closer to the "shelter" part or the "McMansion" part.
Honestly, if you took offense at anything I said, I hope you realize no one is attacking YOU. Just debating an idea.
My specific point about MONETARY costs was relative to employment. (Easier to summarize than to go back and link). I choose to work for an employer who provides coverage. I realize this is factored into my compensation package, and so I earn a lower wage than if the employer did not provide this benefit. Now with ACA, I also get to help finance the insurance plans of others. I personally do believe the sick and seriously ill should be treated. I disagree with forced insurance.
I may be a complete dunderhead here, so I'm sorry if I'm asking for clarification that others find obvious. Did your taxes go up or something? Or are you saying you as someone with an employer-based plan is paying more into your private-group insurance because all insurance companies are now raising insurance costs? (Or that your take home pay has not gone up recently because your employer has suddenly had to pay more into the same system you had before.)0 -
Wow, those are some personal questions! But, yes, yes, and yes. And, the enactment of ACA has not done anything that it was purportedly going to do (i.e. stop rising costs due to non-payers, be free to the unemployed or underemployed, encourage healthcare reforms, etc.) All it has done is force people who already couldn't afford coverage, and in some cases didn't really need coverage (I know, many many people disagree with that), to either buy coverage or pay a penalty. The primary entities really benefitting from all this is the insurance companies and the government sector.3
-
Wow, those are some personal questions! But, yes, yes, and yes. And, the enactment of ACA has not done anything that it was purportedly going to do (i.e. stop rising costs due to non-payers, be free to the unemployed or underemployed, encourage healthcare reforms, etc.) All it has done is force people who already couldn't afford coverage, and in some cases didn't really need coverage (I know, many many people disagree with that), to either buy coverage or pay a penalty. The primary entities really benefitting from all this is the insurance companies and the government sector.
I don't know that I'd say that's "all" the ACA has done. It's clearly a policy you don't support, though. Do you feel it would have more accomplished its goals better if certain states hadn't been allowed to opt out of the medicare expansion?0 -
You ask a lot of questions. Let me ask you one. How great of a law do you think it is if our politicians in Congress voted to exempt themselves from it, just as they exempt themselves from insider trading laws?2
-
mskessler89 wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...
I never understand this argument. SOMEONE has to do the minimum wage jobs. If everyone educates themselves and works hard, who's going to scrub the toilets in your office building? Do your dry-cleaning? Provide the manual labor in your warehouse to keep your business moving? Work as a line cook or server at your favorite restaurant? Staff registers at grocery stores? Considering the utter pittance entry-level teachers (you know, hard-working college-educated people) are currently paid, who's going to teach your kids?
If you don't want government programs filling in gaps to help low wage earners get by, do you want businesses to pay their employees more (thus creating higher costs for consumers)? Are you ok with these people living in housing that's not up to code because it's all they can afford, risking fires? Or in unsanitary conditions so they risk spreading illnesses at work? We're going to pay, one way or the other.
Why should someone be paid more than the value of their work?? If I'm walking your dog 5 days a week are you going to pay me $30k because that's what I need to get by or are you going to pay me a reasonable rate for my services?
Not to mention that there are plenty of people already working those jobs for a supplemental income. I swear half of the women who work in my local target are retired and just passing time or earning extra money.0 -
Not directly, but you seem to be in favor of it, IMO.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions