First, in my post I agree, it sounds like I'm not acknowledging that all the benefits my employer provides don't count as income. I do acknowledge that. I make very good money, and am allowed all the overtime I ever want ( because I don't whine, and I get the work done ), I am one of very few who are allowed such privileges.
However, I want to know what gives you the right to say that I should not be offended at something, then you turn right around and tell me you are offended at me? Why should you be allowed an opinion, and not me? Hypocrite. You say the dollar is devalued, I agree, because too many people in this country make more than they are worth! Employers are forced to raise the cost of their services / merchandise because the people working * sitting on the clock * for them will sue if they don't make X amount of money.
I apologize if that rubbed you wrong. As for my right to say it, I have a right to say it, because I have a right to free speech. Just as you do. I wasn't saying you weren't entitled to your opinion. I'd defend your right to express your opinion to my dying breath, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to redirect you when you're in fact misdirected. There's nothing hypocritical about me telling you that it offends me when you (or anyone else) fails to comprehend the value that they receive for their efforts. My perception of your lack of understanding of the value was apparent when you make a statement that indicates $16.50 is the end all be all of your pay, then follow it up with benefits that don't exist in the jobs about which we are speaking, and your job situation isn't even close to comparable to that of the minimum wage range of employees. It's much more skilled, and in my mind is worth more than what you're getting paid for it, including all those benefits. That you do understand that there is much more value in all the benefits you get is good, but in a way makes it worse, because you know you're worth if you were paying for those benefits yourself around $60 an hour. Now imagine not getting those benefits and see a take-home of 25 to 30 an hour (presuming you pay for those benefits yoursefl) and say they shouldn't get 15. Saying you shouldn't be offended by something and illustrating where you should direct your offense isn't comparable to what I was offended about, as what I was offended about is not misdirected. Nobody should ever be offended by people attempting to improve their lot in life, and be paid what they are worth in relation to the cost of living, ever. There are other things to be offended by, such as what I illustrated above that should absolutely offend you.
The dollar is not devalued because of people making more than their worth, that entire statement is a shining example of ignorance of economics or the reality of the situation in this country in regards to why the dollar is devalued. It's devalued due to the constant printing by the Federal Reserve. It's devalued because of constant spending, borrowing and bailouts by the government and the 'experimentation' being done by so-called "Federal" Reserve in regards to interest rates and inflation. It's devalued because of continued rampant abuses to the system, that do not include anyone getting paid more than they're worth. An individual's pay doesn't have anything to do with the value of the dollar. The government does, the central bank quite specifically does (Federal Reserve - which by the way is a private organization and is not a federal anything). Regulations on companies that prevent them from creating jobs in the US or forcing companies to turn to foreign outsourcing has a lot to do with it also. There are even more examples of scenarios that have something to do with the devaluation of the American Dollar, but I can't think of them at the moment. But none of them come down to people being paid more than they're worth.
I'm not devaluing kids period. I think everyone should have a high school job, its a good experience in how to deal with the workplace environment, and it teaches responsibility. I agree, they do provide a service, one that has made this the fattest nation on Earth. I don't say that to demean the people doing the job, but the job itself. If someone has a job at McDonalds, and is living with mom and dad, but is going to college to become an engineer, great! That job has done its purpose at that point. If however, someone has a job at McDonalds, is living at mom and dads, gets married, stays at mom and dads, turns 30, has kids, still at mom and dads, and working at McDonalds and starts crying " I don't make enough ! " well.... I don't feel any pity for that person.
I would have to agree with it as you lay it out, but I can't agree entirely, because that's not the only situation that is being seen with people working in jobs such as Fast-Food. It's not just being had by high-school kids looking for first time job experience. It's not being had by the lazy that haven't gone out to get an education. That's a weird spin being put on it, by people threatened over nothing in general. It's being had by people forced out of life-long jobs early. It's being had by people whose industry has all but collapsed. It's being had by people that can't find the local work or afford to move to the area in which their industry exists. Walmart isn't any better either in that regard, and they employ a lion's share of ages between 22 and 75.
As far as the elderly that lost a lot in their retirements when the economy crashed, I admire them, and feel for them. It is a sad thing that happened to many of people. Here is the difference, they went out, found a job. They are working at 65yrs old, and bringing in an income. They get by with what is left from their 401K, social security, and income combined. It may not be perfect, but they are making it work. They are not crying " I used to make $25 an hour as an engineer, I want Wallmart to pay me the same amount to greet people at the door!". They know its not as valuable a job as what they once had, but they are humble about it, and that deserves respect. If the economy flops like that again with my generation things are going to be alot worst because my generation expects to be fed with a silver spoon!
They went out and found a job, and they do deserve respect, but they also deserve a "living wage" from one job. And they shouldn't even have to go get one, unfortunately for reasons above, they can't even enjoy their retirement years properly. Having to have multiple part time jobs, and then not getting paid enough from any of them combined to actually create a living wage where they're not at work 24/7 is not a solution. Barely scraping by with your retirement and some part time work or even full time work isn't a situation that anyone should have to endure. They should be able to maintain at least half of their quality of life that they previously knew, just with SSI and 401K/Retirement package. Because they should be able to meet all their needs and have some in case of emergency repairs on their home, their car, medical emergencies, etc.
And then there are a vast number of people that still can't find employment. Which is where this sort of thing offered by Net-Flix helps to alleviate, actually. The unemployment rate is a farce, because those people that the numbers list are only the ones still on unemployment insurance, it doesn't reflect the actual employment enjoyed in this country. Most of the people in this country not on unemployment just have not been able to find work at all. A lot of people started their own little businesses and are getting by, but not everyone has the drive or the skills to do that sort of thing. But the fact is, there are whole industries that have collapsed, and people can't find work, or are doing basic service jobs like Walmart, Gas Stations, and Fast-Food. There are people that can't afford to move to areas where their industry is doing better in order to get that job that pays better and are stuck with what is available in their communities.
I doubt (you sound like you're Gen X or maybe Y), that anyone of our generations (I'm Gen-X) feels like they need a hand-out. In fact, I despise it. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but have not been fortunate enough to ever work for one company for 14 years. 2 at a maximum. Longest in an industry was 6. But that's besides the point. I think most people want independence. To be paid what they deserve to be paid. So long as you do your job effectively, you should be making enough to take care of at least your basics. If you're really good at your job, that makes you worth more. If you're **** at your job, you're not going to have it too long for sure. But a minimum is aimed at ensuring that people have a means to increase their value, it won't devalue anything.
I have to disagree that every job should be able to provide all your needs. Most don't, that's why most families in this nation have at least two incomes, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have been blessed with a bargain hunter wife, and a job in which we only need one income. We aren't the only nation that way, and the reality is, in many parts of the world whole tribes, villages, towns have to work together just to survive. There is nothing wrong, or demeaning about having several incomes under one roof, or having to have several incomes to be able to pay the bills.
You have got to be kidding when you state that first sentence. I'm not trying to offend you but that statement just doesn't make sense. I would rather think that you didn't think it through enough. It used to be that the man of the house could go and work his job, put in his 40, support a household of 4, own possibly even more than one car and still have time to live life. And that is how it should be, but it isn't even close to that anymore. Largely because businesses don't change until laws make them change. There is, in my mind, absolutely something wrong with people having to have more than one job to make ends meet. Especially if you can't make ends meet with one full time job. If you're working 2 or more part times and can't make ends meet, there's an issue there too. If you live in a multi-adult household, and your finances are combined, there's nothing wrong with more than one job. Roommate situations are another place where multi-adult job holding is a good idea, but those people are also stuck because of their below "living wage" minimums. They can't get out on their own so long as they can't fully support rent/food/utilities/clothing on their own. Then there's the other asides, medical, fuel, insurance, car payments, vehicle maintenance, etc. As long as businesses can get away with paying you **** wages, they will continue to pay you **** wages. This actually does include Walmart or any other business that pays the existent minimum wage, and doesn't offer many or any benefits to pad that to make it work. And take-home pay is more the end all be all. If you can't take home after taxes enough to pay the rent, pay the utilities, and buy your food, for you and your family with one job, you're simply not being paid according to the cost of living. You are not making a "living wage". Especially as many families are single parent, and some single parents are working over 40 a week, and barely scraping by. What sort of life is that, when you can't afford to do something nice for yourself or your children at least once a month or pay for other services (such as Net-Flix or something similar) or products that help you or your family in some way, or to have the ability to stock away a bit in case of an emergency (such as job loss - because we all know no matter how long you've been somewhere, your job could evaporate in a heartbeat)? We need to have an economy which is strong enough that everyone can live their lives without outside assistance or trading all their time for money just to exist.
Here's some facts for you about the minimum wage, so you can gain a better understanding. If you would like to take the time to read it.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/
I just don't see this as a public service worth that much. Just my personal opinion, and I see your point as far as the legal aspect of it goes. If they are breaking the law, they are breaking the law. However, if I were Netflix I would add a " shows need reviewed " tab, and anyone who watches, and gives a brief description of 10 shows a month, with a picture relating well to the show/episode will get the following months service free. That is about what this service is worth, not $25/hr. That would make the Netflix service cost way too much.
You talked earlier about the elderly who were screwed over by the economy. This is the perfect job for them. Not for someone trying to support a family. Some jobs just aren't worth that much, but there is someone out there that these jobs are perfect for, those are the people that need to take these jobs
I agree with you about it not being that important, I mean, it's not essential to life in general, just makes their service look better, but for a company like Net-Flix, image is everything, it's their brand, they should be willing to pay for it. I also agree this isn't one of those jobs that should support a family. Supplement yes, sure, but not support. I'm just saying, when trading time for money, it's important to understand you're trading an irreplaceable resource for a renewable one. Time = Money is the saying, but Time is in fact more valuable. If you average it out, what people get for spending all that time, especially viewing shows they probably will regret watching, lol, would be to give them a bit more incentive, and to drop all the time frame requirements.
As you read, one person was actually spending full-time time investment and not even getting paid equivalent to an under the minimum wage job, and when they started doing it like a full time job, they were fired. You don't 'fire' contractors, you just stop hiring them.
I agree with you also that it's great for the elderly. I also agree it's not worth $25 an hour. I didn't say that did I? If I did I meant $25 per show, because even with some of them only being 25 minutes, there are some that are 3+ hours long. Not all of them, they generally average probably around 1.75 to 2 hours long. Sometimes a bit longer. But if you watched nothing but 3 hour shows, that puts your hourly at approximately $7 an hour. Which is right at minimum wage. And Net-Flix pays more for 30 second commercials and Cost Per View adverts than they could come close to paying these people even at that rate. They have over 75 million subscribers. At between $8 and $12 a month... That's 600 million to 900,000,000 per month they are raking in. It's not like they don't have the means to pay people in a way that is actually worth their effort. That's my argument on the money side of things. I respect that your opinion is that it's not worth that much however, it's just worth more than $10 per show when there is some relatively major effort required to do what they want done. It's not necessarily easy to find that perfect image or video (a cut of the movie) that describes it the best.
Hopefully we understand one another better now. Everyone working any full-time job or multiple part time employment should be able to receive a wage which accounts for rising costs, and allows for some wiggle room so one isn't living hand-mouth. Everyone deserves that. At a minimum for basics. There are other ways to get help with medical, dental and such, but the idea of Americans being forced to rely on that sickens me. This country was built on independence and hard work.
