Tiered minimum wage?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Bottom Line:

Our country has a huge problem with poverty. I don't know what is considered a liveable amount, or how they determin that... so I can't comment on that alone.

I do however think affirmitive action should be adjusted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe a rich black male who's father is a doctor gets admitted into school before a vietnamese immigrant does. The system is skewed and outdated.
------------------

Here's a thought. Let's not base AA on race, but rather poverty. Is it harder to grow up dirt poor or a minority?

If anyone takes offense to this I am sorry, and I do sympathize with minorities. I don't mean to take away from an issue as serious as race, but rather to shed light to an issue that isn't really talked about enough. There needs to be a great deal of legislation passed to battle racism and nepotism that exists in both politics and throughout the country.

I do however, believe that the #1 issue in this country should be helping educate the uneducated, and to eliminate poverty. Reaganomics is BS and I'm sick of it...

I know I'm all over the place... but I had to give my 2 cents. -all love

That's a horrible idea. It would reward those who haven't worked hard to improve themselves (aka lazy) instead of rewarding those who have worked hard, studied, stayed out of trouble and actually WANT to improve themselves.

So under your "AA" plan, two job candidates come in. We'll use myself...3 degrees (one with full scholarship) and plenty of job experience. Then we have a young man from the city who couldn't afford to go to college but also didn't work hard enough or care enough to try for a scholarship to get some further education. He's been working a part-time, minimum wage job and spends the rest of his free time hanging out in mall parking lots with his friends instead of trying to improve himself.

So...the employer wants to hire the driven, educated, experienced person...but their government-enforced quota says he needs to hire another poor person to "help them out", so he must hire the lesser-qualified candidate.



Heck, this idea actually makes the current, racist AA policy look better.


Any one can work themselves out of their current situation in America. Immigrants (legal) come in with no money, no real education and can barely speak English and they are able to start their own businesses and make a great life for their families. Why? Because instead of whining and putting their hands out for help from the taxpayers, they work hard for 16 hours a day...they study and they dedicate their waking hours to improving themselves.

There is a serious mentality problem in America, moreso than a poverty problem. Even these "poor" people have a car, a TV and every appliance that the rest of us have. They have more than the richest people of some nations. We give them welfare checks and instead of using them to get OFF welfare, they put up a satellite dish on their rowhome and get chrome rims on their $200 car. I work in the city and I see it every day.

The reason there are so many people on government assistance is because we keep giving it to them. They have no incentive to work and make something of themselves...they can sit at home and watch Oprah while the rest of us work hard to earn THEIR living. We need to put serious limits on welfare. If you are able to work, you will work if you want to eat. If you have an injury and need some assistance, ok...but there's a strict cutoff date. If you are disabled or elderly and absolutely can't earn enough of a living...ok, we'll help you. Also...stop having babies if you're already having trouble feeding the ones you have...so no increases for the people who stay at home and have kids to increase their monthly check.



2 Thessalonians 3:10, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Buster

That's a horrible idea. It would reward those who haven't worked hard to improve themselves (aka lazy) instead of rewarding those who have worked hard, studied, stayed out of trouble and actually WANT to improve themselves.

So under your "AA" plan, two job candidates come in. We'll use myself...3 degrees (one with full scholarship) and plenty of job experience. Then we have a young man from the city who couldn't afford to go to college but also didn't work hard enough or care enough to try for a scholarship to get some further education. He's been working a part-time, minimum wage job and spends the rest of his free time hanging out in mall parking lots with his friends instead of trying to improve himself.

So...the employer wants to hire the driven, educated, experienced person...but their government-enforced quota says he needs to hire another poor person to "help them out", so he must hire the lesser-qualified candidate.

I agree with what you're saying but I think the intention of the idea was that if two candidiates are equally qualified then consideration should be given to the one that is living at or near the poverty, as far as AA is concerned.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I agree with what you're saying but I think the intention of the idea was that if two candidiates are equally qualified then consideration should be given to the one that is living at or near the poverty, as far as AA is concerned.

That would be ideal, but that's not how the REAL AA works, despite being developed under that idea. It's just not something we could fairly enforce forever, so I don't think we should even start with it.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Buster

That's a horrible idea. It would reward those who haven't worked hard to improve themselves (aka lazy) instead of rewarding those who have worked hard, studied, stayed out of trouble and actually WANT to improve themselves.

If you read a little further you'd see

Originally Posted by Robh4413

If we're going to design buildings for those less fortunate (handicapped) why not continue to design a society meant to help the less fortunate. I by no means imply we all sacrifice ourselves so poor drug addicts continue to get there fix and stay poor.I do think, however, that designing an incentive laden path (community colleges are an excellent example) for those who want to become more successful and haven't had the oppurtunity is an ideal solution.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Buster

So under your "AA" plan, two job candidates come in. We'll use myself...3 degrees (one with full scholarship) and plenty of job experience. Then we have a young man from the city who couldn't afford to go to college but also didn't work hard enough or care enough to try for a scholarship to get some further education. He's been working a part-time, minimum wage job and spends the rest of his free time hanging out in mall parking lots with his friends instead of trying to improve himself.

So...the employer wants to hire the driven, educated, experienced person...but their government-enforced quota says he needs to hire another poor person to "help them out", so he must hire the lesser-qualified candidate.

Originally Posted by Robh4413

At any rate, I was speaking of an over-all policy shift towards academic acceptance side of AA, not about meeting job quotas.

kinda touched on that one too...