This is The Average Man's Body

Off Topic
161

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

This type of system requires an actual pathway that you can follow up. Such a thing doesn’t practically exist- There are always fewer management and higher level folks than lower level folks.

So the reality is that a good chunk of the people must be consigned to living at an unlivable wage.

Which means they’ll either have to be homeless or starve.[/quote]

Excellent facts that few seem to think of. [/quote]

This “arrangement” is temporary for the vast majority of people.

[/quote]

Also, working 3 part time jobs at 15hrs each equals 45 hrs a week. So $7.25x45x51weeks a working year for most people= $16,638.75/12=1386.56 gross, and witholdings out of that will be small. Get a roommate doing the same thing you or have a spouse and that comes out to $33277.50 a year household or $2773.13 a month. You may not can have cable, a smart phone, clothes that don’t come from Walmart or the thrift store, food from a restaurant or even the exact foods you want, but you can live and not got hungry.
[/quote]

Not to mention that 45 hrs a week leaves time to continue your education/learn a useful skill that will get you out of the rut of having to work 3 jobs. [/quote]

Really, working 45 hrs a week is basically working one job only spread out over three different employers, with the advent of online programs now there are definitely options for those that wish to take advantage however some people just aren’t cracked up to be anything more than low skill low income labor and they will never get out of having to work 3 part time (essiantially one full time) jobs to get by. Not everyone is a special snowflake destined for greatness, some people are born to flip burgers, just the way it is. [/quote]

For the record I wasn’t trying to come up with a solution that meant bettering themselves, I was coming up with one where they could live. Sometimes you just work to live, suck it up and enjoy the other 123 hrs of your week.

162

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

This type of system requires an actual pathway that you can follow up. Such a thing doesn’t practically exist- There are always fewer management and higher level folks than lower level folks.

So the reality is that a good chunk of the people must be consigned to living at an unlivable wage.

Which means they’ll either have to be homeless or starve.[/quote]

Excellent facts that few seem to think of. [/quote]

This “arrangement” is temporary for the vast majority of people.

[/quote]

Also, working 3 part time jobs at 15hrs each equals 45 hrs a week. So $7.25x45x51weeks a working year for most people= $16,638.75/12=1386.56 gross, and witholdings out of that will be small. Get a roommate doing the same thing you or have a spouse and that comes out to $33277.50 a year household or $2773.13 a month. You may not can have cable, a smart phone, clothes that don’t come from Walmart or the thrift store, food from a restaurant or even the exact foods you want, but you can live and not got hungry.
[/quote]

Why stop at 1 roommate, when you could have 15. That’s what the mexican mennonites do around here.

163

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

This type of system requires an actual pathway that you can follow up. Such a thing doesn’t practically exist- There are always fewer management and higher level folks than lower level folks.

So the reality is that a good chunk of the people must be consigned to living at an unlivable wage.

Which means they’ll either have to be homeless or starve.[/quote]

Excellent facts that few seem to think of. [/quote]

This “arrangement” is temporary for the vast majority of people.

[/quote]

Also, working 3 part time jobs at 15hrs each equals 45 hrs a week. So $7.25x45x51weeks a working year for most people= $16,638.75/12=1386.56 gross, and witholdings out of that will be small. Get a roommate doing the same thing you or have a spouse and that comes out to $33277.50 a year household or $2773.13 a month. You may not can have cable, a smart phone, clothes that don’t come from Walmart or the thrift store, food from a restaurant or even the exact foods you want, but you can live and not got hungry.
[/quote]

Why stop at 1 roommate, when you could have 15. That’s what the mexican mennonites do around here.[/quote]

Not necessarily a bad thing, have you a whole little family unit thing going on.

164

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Also, just to add to this, minimum wage is intended to help the poor in this country. But what it really does (in addition to the above) is increase unemployment among the same population it’s supposed to be helping. When companies have to pay more for jobs than they are worth, they simply get by with employing less of those people and spending more money to automate more jobs.[/quote]

Eh, business owners will automate even if minimum wage didn’t exist. [/quote]

They will automate when they determine it’s less expensive to automate than to continue hiring employees. What makes it more expensive to hire employees? Minimum wage, perhaps?

[quote][quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Also entry level wages ($7-15/hr) were never meant to be living wages. They are a starting point. The employee needs to develop his skills and move up the chain and build a career, the same way the rest of successful people do. If all you want to do is go to work, do some menial job and go home, don’t expect to ever earn a livable wage.
[/quote]

This type of system requires an actual pathway that you can follow up. Such a thing doesn’t practically exist- There are always fewer management and higher level folks than lower level folks.

So the reality is that a good chunk of the people must be consigned to living at an unlivable wage.

Which means they’ll either have to be homeless or starve.[/quote]

This is silly - there is always a path to success, some people just don’t want to look for it or work for it hard enough. And that’s ok, but don’t blame the system because someone doesn’t have the ambition to cultivate their skills and increase their wages.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things not everyone can be a high earning individual. But as people get old and die, younger people who have taken the time to develop their skill sets take their place. And the entry level individuals will always have to start at the bottom. That’s how it works.

And to claim otherwise takes all of the onus off of the individual to succeed and blames society.

Yes, people have to start work at a wage that probably isn’t enough to support a family. You know what you do? You work your ass off to earn more…and then start a family.

Also, just as an example - Chick Fil A owners have all started working entry level positions at Chick Fil A. Chick Fil A doesn’t allow someone to franchise without having started an an entry level position. In essence, anyone with the skills to start an entry level position can one day own a Chick Fil A, or many Chick Fil As. How is that not one (of a million) pathway(s) to success?

165

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not necessarily. It will always come down to the cost/benefit of automation. Automation isn’t free. Not initially and not going forward.[/quote]

I don’t dispute this. It was more in the fact that I interpreted LankyMofo saying that min. wage causes employers to pay more than the job is worth, and so they will turn to automation because automation allows them to pay what the job is actually worth.

Which would be the case even if minimum wage didn’t exist.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That isn’t necessarily true either. There’s no reason why a person can not work two jobs and live with multiple roommates (or remain with their parents) until they either receive a promotion where they currently work or find another higher paying job.

The crux is they have to cultivate a skill, gain useful experience, or education/knowledge about a subject and no one is going to just hand it to them.

Lastly, yes some level of poverty will always exist. [/quote]

You misunderstood. I’m saying that the sort of pathway that Lankymofo implied doesn’t exist, simply because there are not the same amount of jobs in the upper levels as compared to the lower levels.

So, if you have 10 people working entry-level jobs at McDonalds, only 1-2 of them will ever really get the chance to go up into management or some sort of upper level, etc.

Of course they can leverage the skills they developed and find better work elsewhere (and this should be how they do things), but there’ll always be a many people left in the lower level.

Now, can those people take on multiple part-time jobs and make a livable wage? Sure. But that is theoretical and reality always spits in the face of the theoretical.

166

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
They will automate when they determine it’s less expensive to automate than to continue hiring employees. What makes it more expensive to hire employees? Minimum wage, perhaps?[/quote]

Slight correction- Employers automate when they determine that automation is more profitable/more efficient as compared to employed people.

So they can, and may, automate even if the employee is hired at the correct wages.

This really is my only dispute with your statement here. Business owners (theoretically [hah]) are concerned with efficiency and profit, and so even if their employees are hired at reasonable prices they’ll still automate if they decide that automation is cheaper than hiring people.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
This is silly - there is always a path to success,[/quote]

No, there is not.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
some people just don’t want to look for it or work for it hard enough. And that’s ok, but don’t blame the system because someone doesn’t have the ambition to cultivate their skills and increase their wages.[/quote]

Why does everything always have to become about people being lazy and not working hard enough? Besides, this isn’t the point I wanted to make.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Sure, in the grand scheme of things not everyone can be a high earning individual.[/quote]

Then why did you write that there is always a path to success above?

(In this case I assume success=high monetary income and accumulations of lots of material goods)

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Also, just as an example - Chick Fil A owners have all started working entry level positions at Chick Fil A. Chick Fil A doesn’t allow someone to franchise without having started an an entry level position. In essence, anyone with the skills to start an entry level position can one day own a Chick Fil A, or many Chick Fil As. How is that not one (of a million) pathway(s) to success?[/quote]

But not every entry-level employee at Chick-Fil-A will go up into higher management.

That’s the point I’m making. There is no set path. An entry level employee is not guaranteed a higher level job, regardless of his/her abilities.

In other words, this is not some RPG game where a set amount of XP guarantees you’ll level-up and get higher stats and better items and shit.

To sum up my argument in two sentences- There will always be people at the bottom for various reasons, and all the working in the world won’t ever change that. And I think you’re ignored this in the post I initially responded to. Correct me if I’m wrong.

167

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not necessarily. It will always come down to the cost/benefit of automation. Automation isn’t free. Not initially and not going forward.[/quote]

[quote]magick wrote:
I don’t dispute this. It was more in the fact that I interpreted LankyMofo saying that min. wage causes employers to pay more than the job is worth, and so they will turn to automation because automation allows them to pay what the job is actually worth.

Which would be the case even if minimum wage didn’t exist. [/quote]

Not necessarily. Automation may allow them to save money because minimum wage costs more than the value of teh services provided. That doesn’t automatically mean automation = actual worth. Look at it this way. Assuming the value of flipping a burger = $5/hr, minimum wage costs $8/hr, and automation costs $10/hr. At this point the minimum wage is cheaper, but over the value provided. Now MD passes a law that says minimum is $10.10/hr. Automation is now the better option from a cost stand point even though automation costs more than the job is actually worth.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That isn’t necessarily true either. There’s no reason why a person can not work two jobs and live with multiple roommates (or remain with their parents) until they either receive a promotion where they currently work or find another higher paying job.

The crux is they have to cultivate a skill, gain useful experience, or education/knowledge about a subject and no one is going to just hand it to them.

Lastly, yes some level of poverty will always exist. [/quote]

[quote]magick wrote:
You misunderstood. I’m saying that the sort of pathway that Lankymofo implied doesn’t exist, simply because there are not the same amount of jobs in the upper levels as compared to the lower levels. [/quote]

As Lanky points out in a subsequent post the job market is in a constant flux and new opportunities open up all of the time. Think about the age baby boomers are and all of the upwards mobility their retirement will create.

A CPA I know is constantly telling me how a significant portion of CPAs are closing in on retirement age. Which will create a serious shortage in the industry. That’s upwards mobility my friend.

[quote]
So, if you have 10 people working entry-level jobs at McDonalds, only 1-2 of them will ever really get the chance to go up into management or some sort of upper level, etc. [/quote]

Maybe at that particular McDonald’s, but head counts aren’t set in stone especially in the fast food industry. Again, this is a temporary issue for most people.

[quote]
Of course they can leverage the skills they developed and find better work elsewhere (and this should be how they do things), but there’ll always be a many people left in the lower level. [/quote]

Off course there will always be people in the lower levels, but I think your perspective is a bit skewed here. It is rare for a person to remain in their current position for any real period of time. Honestly, imo, you almost have to try not to get promoted in a lot of cases.

[quote]
Now, can those people take on multiple part-time jobs and make a livable wage? Sure. But that is theoretical and reality always spits in the face of the theoretical.[/quote]

There is nothing theoretical about that at all. It happens all of the time.

168

[quote]magick wrote:
But not every entry-level employee at Chick-Fil-A will go up into higher management.

That’s the point I’m making. There is no set path. An entry level employee is not guaranteed a higher level job, regardless of his/her abilities.

In other words, this is not some RPG game where a set amount of XP guarantees you’ll level-up and get higher stats and better items and shit.

To sum up my argument in two sentences- There will always be people at the bottom for various reasons, and all the working in the world won’t ever change that. And I think you’re ignored this in the post I initially responded to. Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
I guess I’m not following.

I mean, ok, there will always be people at the bottom, just by the nature of varying levels of skill development and capabilities and experience levels, so there will always be a bottom.

But the people at the bottom don’t have to stay at the bottom.

Most people employed have worked at a low-level food-service or retail job at one point in their life. Their old positions are still there and still at the bottom… but there are new people in those positions now. If they are content [enough] in those positions, they’ll stay there; if not, they won’t.

There are obviously people who never choose to leave these positions – no matter how long or how much work they put in – but that’s a choice (to not pursue a different position), not a necessity.

169

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
This is silly - there is always a path to success,[/quote]

No, there is not. [/quote]

Off course there is.

[quote]magick wrote:
Then why did you write that there is always a path to success above? [/quote]

Because the path is there. You can’t force someone to take it.

[quote]magick wrote:
But not every entry-level employee at Chick-Fil-A will go up into higher management.

That’s the point I’m making. There is no set path. An entry level employee is not guaranteed a higher level job, regardless of his/her abilities. [/quote]

No one is guaranteed anything in this life…

[quote]magick wrote:
In other words, this is not some RPG game where a set amount of XP guarantees you’ll level-up and get higher stats and better items and shit.

To sum up my argument in two sentences- There will always be people at the bottom for various reasons, and all the working in the world won’t ever change that. [/quote]

That’s ridiculous. Owners reward hard workers because they make them money, period.

170

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
But not every entry-level employee at Chick-Fil-A will go up into higher management.

That’s the point I’m making. There is no set path. An entry level employee is not guaranteed a higher level job, regardless of his/her abilities.

In other words, this is not some RPG game where a set amount of XP guarantees you’ll level-up and get higher stats and better items and shit.

To sum up my argument in two sentences- There will always be people at the bottom for various reasons, and all the working in the world won’t ever change that. And I think you’re ignored this in the post I initially responded to. Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
I guess I’m not following.

I mean, ok, there will always be people at the bottom, just by the nature of varying levels of skill development and capabilities and experience levels, so there will always be a bottom.

But the people at the bottom don’t have to stay at the bottom.

Most people employed have worked at a low-level food-service or retail job at one point in their life. Their old positions are still there and still at the bottom… but there are new people in those positions now. If they are content [enough] in those positions, they’ll stay there; if not, they won’t.

There are obviously people who never choose to leave these positions – no matter how long or how much work they put in – but that’s a choice (to not pursue a different position), not a necessity.[/quote]

I’m as confused as you are.

I’ve worked for minimum wage at a Friendly’s. Then I joined the Marine Corps. (Probably less than minimum wage). Then I got a job based off that experience (4 years). While working at the new job ($17/hr) I went to school at night and ultimate graduated with a degree in accounting. Fast forward two jobs later, mid way through a grad degree, and a promotion I make considerable more than minimum wage and I expect to continue to earn more and more as the value I add increases. It took me about 10 years to get from there to here and I took the long road…

And I aint no special snow flake.

171

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Brickhead’s dog is cute.

Just sayin’[/quote]

Thanks!

172

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
They will automate when they determine it’s less expensive to automate than to continue hiring employees. What makes it more expensive to hire employees? Minimum wage, perhaps?[/quote]

Slight correction- Employers automate when they determine that automation is more profitable/more efficient as compared to employed people.

So they can, and may, automate even if the employee is hired at the correct wages.

This really is my only dispute with your statement here. Business owners (theoretically [hah]) are concerned with efficiency and profit, and so even if their employees are hired at reasonable prices they’ll still automate if they decide that automation is cheaper than hiring people.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
This is silly - there is always a path to success,[/quote]

No, there is not.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
some people just don’t want to look for it or work for it hard enough. And that’s ok, but don’t blame the system because someone doesn’t have the ambition to cultivate their skills and increase their wages.[/quote]

Why does everything always have to become about people being lazy and not working hard enough? Besides, this isn’t the point I wanted to make.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Sure, in the grand scheme of things not everyone can be a high earning individual.[/quote]

Then why did you write that there is always a path to success above?

(In this case I assume success=high monetary income and accumulations of lots of material goods)

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Also, just as an example - Chick Fil A owners have all started working entry level positions at Chick Fil A. Chick Fil A doesn’t allow someone to franchise without having started an an entry level position. In essence, anyone with the skills to start an entry level position can one day own a Chick Fil A, or many Chick Fil As. How is that not one (of a million) pathway(s) to success?[/quote]

But not every entry-level employee at Chick-Fil-A will go up into higher management.

That’s the point I’m making. There is no set path. An entry level employee is not guaranteed a higher level job, regardless of his/her abilities.

In other words, this is not some RPG game where a set amount of XP guarantees you’ll level-up and get higher stats and better items and shit.

To sum up my argument in two sentences- There will always be people at the bottom for various reasons, and all the working in the world won’t ever change that. And I think you’re ignored this in the post I initially responded to. Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

You seem kinda hung up on guarantees. The only guarantee in this life is that you will die. Period. Everything else is up for grabs.

The individuals who founded the corporations we are discussing did so with no guarantees whatsoever of success. Why should the fry cook expect one?

173

1336×778 98.6 KB

[quote]batman730 wrote:
The only guarantee in this life is that you will die. Period.[/quote]

174

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
The only guarantee in this life is that you will die. Period.[/quote]
[/quote]

lol

175

[quote] pushharder wrote:

One problem with this narrative would be New Guinea – as humid as anywhere on earth and has had an isolated population for thousands of years. What would we expect to find there under your premise? Big strong, muscular, fast twitch dominant folks, right?

But what do we actually find when we go there? You tell me.

[/quote]

Big gourds.

176

Kenya is in Africa and is hot and humid. That country has a history of producing slow twitch athletes.

178

haha

179

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What’s an inflated minimum wage, $13 an hour? [/quote]
Minimum wage, due to it’s very nature, is an inflated wage.

My father in law and I argue about this. He is of the impassioned opinion that anyone who is willing to work is owed a “living wage”. He loosely implies that this wage might be around $15/hr. From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that if the government were to impose a $15/hr minimum wage on corporations who employ minimum wage labourers we would only see an initial increase in the standard of living for people in that earning bracket. Does anybody really think it would being before the corporations would increase the cost of basic goods and services to regain their lost profitability? The minimum wage earners would soon be right back where they are in terms of buying power while those of us who have managed to elevate our market value above the minimum would find our buying power eroded (until we, in turn, begin to charge more for our goods and service).

[/quote]

The thing is that prices should be higher. Walmart, McDonald’s, Tim Horton’s, etc… all turn huge profits while tax dollars subsidize an otherwise unsustainable commodity they require to operate (if not for government money their labor force wouldn’t survive, and they’d be out of business with no one to flip patties). In what kind of bizaro world should a big mac cost less to buy than it costs to make while McDonald’s still turns a profit on every sale?
That’s crazy. I want lower taxes, not cheaper big macs.[/quote]

You’re gonna have to prove Big Mac’s are sold at a loss and if that’s a part of their overall sales strategy, ie a loss leader.

[/quote]

They turn a 5 billion dollar profit using government subsidized labor. And probably subsidized beef. And probably subsidized electric generation now that I think about it. McDonald’s: Your tax dollars at work. I’m lovin it.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1

Forget the last page where they try to throw management under the bus implying they make too much. Simply put they could pay their workers a living wage (whatever they dish out now, plus what the government covers), and still turn a 4 billion dollar profit.

Responsible companies need to pay for their own sustainability. I don’t care if it’s labor, materials, or energy. We (the tax payers) should not tolerate anything less. Corporate welfare is the worst kind of welfare.

180

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What’s an inflated minimum wage, $13 an hour? [/quote]
Minimum wage, due to it’s very nature, is an inflated wage.

My father in law and I argue about this. He is of the impassioned opinion that anyone who is willing to work is owed a “living wage”. He loosely implies that this wage might be around $15/hr. From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that if the government were to impose a $15/hr minimum wage on corporations who employ minimum wage labourers we would only see an initial increase in the standard of living for people in that earning bracket. Does anybody really think it would being before the corporations would increase the cost of basic goods and services to regain their lost profitability? The minimum wage earners would soon be right back where they are in terms of buying power while those of us who have managed to elevate our market value above the minimum would find our buying power eroded (until we, in turn, begin to charge more for our goods and service).

[/quote]

The thing is that prices should be higher. Walmart, McDonald’s, Tim Horton’s, etc… all turn huge profits while tax dollars subsidize an otherwise unsustainable commodity they require to operate (if not for government money their labor force wouldn’t survive, and they’d be out of business with no one to flip patties). In what kind of bizaro world should a big mac cost less to buy than it costs to make while McDonald’s still turns a profit on every sale?
That’s crazy. I want lower taxes, not cheaper big macs.[/quote]

You’re gonna have to prove Big Mac’s are sold at a loss and if that’s a part of their overall sales strategy, ie a loss leader.

[/quote]

They turn a 5 billion dollar profit using government subsidized labor. And probably subsidized beef. And probably subsidized electric generation now that I think about it. McDonald’s: Your tax dollars at work. I’m lovin it.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1

Forget the last page where they try to throw management under the bus implying they make too much. Simply put they could pay their workers a living wage (whatever they dish out now, plus what the government covers), and still turn a 4 billion dollar profit.

Responsible companies need to pay for their own sustainability. I don’t care if it’s labor, materials, or energy. We (the tax payers) should not tolerate anything less. Corporate welfare is the worst kind of welfare.[/quote]

This!