Ivanka Criticizes Green New Deal: "People Want to Work for What they Get"

[bekkilyn]

I think a "living wage" is a relative term. Many factors are involved in what it takes for one to survive. Such as how much debt one has, or keeping up with the Jones', etc. 52 grand a year is not enough for a family with two new vehicles and and a mortgage that must have the latest I Phone. Yet 52 grand is plenty to a family with no debt and no ego to stroke. I think one factor concerning a living wage would be the recipient's way of handling money.

What you say is true and is a symptom of another problem with our extremely materialistic culture. I think if we did make some changes and offered some sort of basic income to everyone, we would need to designate the basics that income should be able to pay for vs. what are truly luxuries. People can live very comfortably without a McMansion, new vehicles every two years, etc. This "more" mindset is something that frustrates me very much with our culture, but is probably a topic for a different discussion. At the same time, I've seen people begrudging the poor the use of a refrigerator or a very basic pre-paid phone. The lack of financial education is also a symptom of the lack of emphasis on education in general.

 

[Hammster]

Using race as a criteria would be illegal.

I honestly do not understand the rationale insisting that families/individuals, people willing to work and wanting to better themselves, stay impoverished.

I haven’t seen anyone advocate that.

 

[Hammster]

And none do. The need based programs sometimes include factors related to ones physical disability. In the case of being disabled (as defined by Social Security), one cannot work enough to sustain oneself at a minimum level. So that has nothing to do with employers.

As I said, the idea is one thing, implementation is another. But a company that pays so little that an employee qualifies for Food Stamps is actually receiving Corporate Welfare. That’s rather inefficient IMO.

It’s only corporate welfare if it’s the responsibility of the company to pay a “living wage”.

 

[FenderTL5]

It’s only corporate welfare if it’s the responsibility of the company to pay a “living wage”.

I disagree, in a way. It's corporate welfare when taxpayers are subsidizing the real cost of labor.

 

[cow451]

It’s only corporate welfare if it’s the responsibility of the company to pay a “living wage”.

No, I beg to differ. Programs like Food stamps allow employers to pay a low wage , knowing the employees can get these benefits. This isn’t any big secret in the Wal-Mart type business.

 

[bekkilyn]

Where Im from it doesn't take much skill to pick sweet potatoes and clean houses or serve food.
Again the rewarding bad behavior is only an incentive to continue the bad behavior.

Someone who cleans houses or serves food should still be able to be able to reasonably live on whatever wages they earn doing these jobs. It is wrong for us to have an attitude that only people who do skilled labor are worthy of being able to support themselves and perhaps a family.

 

[Hammster]

I disagree, in a way. It's corporate welfare when taxpayers are subsidizing the real cost of labor.

They aren’t. It’s not a companies responsibility to pay a “living wage”.

 

[cow451]

Where Im from it doesn't take much skill to pick sweet potatoes and clean houses or serve food.
Again the rewarding bad behavior is only an incentive to continue the bad behavior.

Working at hard manual labor is “bad behavior?” That’s interesting. Maybe that’s why those are called “Mexican” jobs by some Americans

 

[Hammster]

No, I beg to differ. Programs like Food stamps allow employers to pay a low wage , knowing the employees can get these benefits. This isn’t any big secret in the Wal-Mart type business.

I guess that true, but only for those companies that force people to work for them.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't know what you're going on about with the 70's and 80's thing. I never said that. My usage occurred this decade. There is all sorts of information available these days to point people in the right direction for career paths. Scholarships, grants, federal aid, etc. are also available more than ever for higher education opportunities.

Even YouTube is a popular place to get academic tutorial information; I know of someone who watched a YouTube video to help with his calculus homework assignment. Guess what? You can do that at your local library!

I'm trying to decide whether you are intentionally being obtuse with this argument, or whether you really are seriously missing the point.

 

[cow451]

They aren’t. It’s not a companies responsibility to pay a “living wage”.

Maybe it should be. Labor laws can be changed.

Child Miners - Mine Driver

 

[FenderTL5]

They aren’t. It’s not a companies responsibility to pay a “living wage”.

It should be, since the "minimum wage" IS a responsibility of the company AND the minimum wage was established to be a living wage from the very get-go.
It hasn't kept up and the politicians have had no incentive to do so.

 

[New Birth]

I disagree, in a way. It's corporate welfare when taxpayers are subsidizing the real cost of labor.

What is the real cost of labor? Isn't this relative?

 

[New Birth]

Working at hard manual labor is “bad behavior?” That’s interesting. Maybe that’s why those are called “Mexican” jobs by some Americans

I think you missed a post or two. I did not say working hard is "bad behavior".

 

[BigDaddy4]

I'm trying to decide whether you are intentionally being obtuse with this argument, or whether you really are seriously missing the point.

Again, not sure what the 70s and 80s has to do with what I said. If you have a point, please make it. I'm not the one who won't accept that there are more opportunities everywhere to improve oneself than ever before.

 

[bekkilyn]

Again, not sure what the 70s and 80s has to do with what I said. If you have a point, please make it. I'm not the one who won't accept that there are more opportunities everywhere to improve oneself than ever before.

That wasn't the argument. The argument is that we all have the SAME opportunity to accomplish a particular thing, such as becoming a notable computer scientist. We do not have the same opportunity at all.

Of course we all have some opportunity to improve ourselves in SOMETHING, but an impoverished person having opportunity to improve in doing push ups isn't at all the SAME opportunity as a well off person being able to improve their ability in piloting a private airplane.

A student having an opportunity to go to a public library and get math help for a few minutes of watching a YouTube video is not the SAME opportunity as a person who is able to spend hours everyday for free in up-to-date research lab with super-computers chock full of all the right development and mathematical software in order to BECOME (not research a career path) a noted computer scientist.

I don't see how you can even remotely view this as any sort of equal comparison of opportunity, even in this century. If I'm born rich and you're born poor, then my opportunities are going to be VASTLY greater than yours simply by my fortune of birth.

 

[whatbogsends]

And why is it the responsibility of a company to pay that regardless of any skill or training an employee may or may not have?

They don't need to hire anyone that doesn't meet their skill or training requirements. It is up to the company, because workers don't set prices for wages, companies do.

 

[whatbogsends]

so only food and shelter and basic utilities. Not two cars with expensive rims, 75" tv in every room, newest cell phones, the most popular clothes right?

Correct. Food and shelter. Be able to provide oneself with transportation. In the city, that would mean busses/subway/train, in other parts of the country a car is necessary (and no, expensive rims or even an expensive car is not). I think everyone should have a TV, but with current prices, they should be able to get one that is more than adequate for a few hundred bucks. They should be able to afford a cell phone, but it certainly doesn't need to be the newest model.

 

[Hammster]

They don't need to hire anyone that doesn't meet their skill or training requirements. It is up to the company, because workers don't set prices for wages, companies do.

I agree.

 

[Pommer]

That doesn’t seem accurate based on where I live.

Well, that setttles that!