@sh76 saidYou said "Nobody is being forced to live in California", implying you were talking about moving out of the state. Cali has 7 of the top ten most expensive cities to live in, including the #1 spot. So merely traveling to another city won't help.
Travel costs almost nothing if you're willing to take the inter-city bus system (which I've done, incidentally). It's not the most comfortable travel in the world, but it's manageable.
Regardless of how difficult moving to another state is, better answers are needed than "GTFO". You'd need a mass exodus from California before housing prices drop. Even then the cost of living is increasing no matter where in the U.S. you move to. That's why millennials are struggling to buy homes.
91d
@vivify saidPretty weak, Vivify., I think we have to at least limit this to normal people. If a guy has 4 children and works 3 jobs, he will not likely be able to pull up roots. He could not afford bus tickets. If a normal person cannot drive or fly with his (smaller) family, he can take the bus. I assume he has savings. On the other hand, if an able bodied man lives on the street in SFrisco, he can easily pick up and go. Especially if he is as healthy as the illegals, who are more fit than I am. Hey, I thought ya'll said that they are the starving masses, searching for mother's milk. What a crock.
Moving to a different state is more difficult for some than others. Most people need a family member to stay with while getting settled. Not everyone can afford travel, whether that means a plain ticket or being able to secure a vehicle.
If moving to a different state was as simple as you make it sound, the whole country would move to the rural mid-west.
I agree th ...[text shortened]... t minimum wage increase alone is not the answer. There are structural changes that need to be made.
90d
@averagejoe1 saidMontana.
I am not a fan of wasted silly glib posts, it is better to be serious. This is not meant to be cute, but why does someone scrap out a life in California, from the homeless to the midclass, when for a bus ticket, they can be Idaho. I would LOVE to live in Idaho?
I just don't get it. It happens that I have a relative in those oil fields, makes good money. That is not ...[text shortened]... te streets of SFrancisco, or step off a bus in Idaho.
I would like a serious discussion on this.
That's the ticket, man, Montana.
90d
@kevcvs57 saidIs he too old to be president?
Now if you could get on with changing his man diapers that would be great
lol
90d
@earl-of-trumps saidWho would vote Against someone? That is what they are doing. It is a BIIIIGG against. They think that he should do time, like 700 years
Is he too old to be president?
lol
90d
@AverageJoe1
I guess you had a problem reading that AverageJoe1 thing at the top of that post.
If YOU were in charge, the minimum wage would HAVE no minimum.
Come to work at MY restaurant, you will start with THREE DOLLARS AN HOUR! I bet you didn't expect THAT.
88d
@vivify saidIt’s mostly due to rich people treating housing as an investment instead of as a place to live.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/why-is-san-diego-the-most-expensive-us-city-check-criteria-and-rankings-of-other-places/articleshow/104781417.cms
California has the second highest rent prices in the country, the second most expensive houses and mortgage rates.
Cali also has the #1 highest cost of food, and the 7 of the top 10 most expensive cities in ...[text shortened]... ifornia will be unliveable. The cost of housing is why California had a severe homelessness crisis.
@sonhouse saidThis is as it should be stroker, it's good to see after my lessons you're learning something. An hour of a persons time belongs to them they should be free to sell that hour as they choose, if they want to give that time for free that's none of your business either.
@AverageJoe1
I guess you had a problem reading that AverageJoe1 thing at the top of that post.
If YOU were in charge, the minimum wage would HAVE no minimum.
Come to work at MY restaurant, you will start with THREE DOLLARS AN HOUR! I bet you didn't expect THAT.
88d
@sonhouse saidCheck out Shouse using the word weaponize. Really funny. Tell us how weaponizing is practiced, can you give us some examples that may be going on right now??? hahahahahah
@AverageJoe1
Yeah, how DARE those subhumans for DARING to want a better life.
You weaponize any POS statement by a deadhead and think that will buy you votes or happiness.
88d
@sh76 saidIf I may add to this 'moving your family' concept, if someone has not planned well, and maybe has too many kids to afford doing much of anything, like moving, well, then, they just don't move. A no brainer. Should not have had more kids than they can afford. There are a lot of reasons someone cannot move to another state. Poor planning. I have enjoyed many a post on that one!
You're talking about the population of people who have employment or skills to make more than the minimum wage but less than the cost of living in California cities. These people are certainly capable of moving to another city if they want to.
Travel costs almost nothing if you're willing to take the inter-city bus system (which I've done, incidentally). It's not the most com ...[text shortened]... le.
People don't move to the rural midwest, ny and large, because they don't want that lifestyle.
88d
@kevcvs57 saidKev, you refer to my re-post of this story, the horrible idiot in CA who knows nothing?That, I erred in reposting? Well, I did it to add the link, but note, you libs can't get enough of my re-post!! We are at the end of 2 pages. Chalk up one for AJoe.
Now if you could get on with changing his man diapers that would be great
88d
@sonhouse saidwell, yes, theoretically, wages should float depending on several factors. Capitalism.There are many avenues for employees, like Unions, as long as there is always RightToWork, etc, no law breaking. Employees can quit, they can negotiate, they can work hard, become a manager, maybe end up owning the company.
@AverageJoe1
I guess you had a problem reading that AverageJoe1 thing at the top of that post.
If YOU were in charge, the minimum wage would HAVE no minimum.
Come to work at MY restaurant, you will start with THREE DOLLARS AN HOUR! I bet you didn't expect THAT.
Why do libs get into other peoples' businesses? If I own a donut shop and pay $10 and hour, I could say..."everyone ,I am now going to pay $8 an hour'. They can quit or work hard or whatever. maybe even form a union. I guess I have a right to do what I want to in a RighttoWork state, so what business would it be of yours.? I might see these illegals coming and hire them for $5, that is prob going to happen. I am writing theoretically, I am not talking about me personally, don't go nuts about the mean AvJoe.
@athousandyoung saidWatch out, let's not stir Marauder and Shav up about natural rights to live!! Here is someone (Robin Philips author) who says something that may rankle them fellers.
It’s mostly due to rich people treating housing as an investment instead of as a place to live.
“But do natural rights even exist? I don’t think so.
The problem with natural rights is that they hinge on certain theories of self-ownership that we are hard pressed to find in scripture. If natural rights really do exist, then God would be required to adhere to them, and yet God restricts our life, liberty and property all the time. From a scriptural point of view, it seems that we don’t have the right to anything, at least not in an a priori sense.
Even those who espouse natural rights allow that there are circumstances in which the state has the duty to restrict someone’s liberty (as in the case of a convicted criminal) or even take away a person’s life (as in the case of a convicted murderer). What does this establish other than that whatever we may wish to call a ‘natural right’ is really contingent on a host of other factors and circumstances? This, incidentally, is exactly what Burke argues in his Reflections on the Revolution in France.
87d
@averagejoe1 saidYeah but increasing minimum take home pay to match with cost of living will shift the burden of caring for low income people to the company that is employing them.
I don’t see how that is a response to my clear explanation of why NOT to increase the wage. If it makes sense to you, can you tell your followers, or tell us all what is wrong with it. Once that is settled, we can go into ‘fair share’?
Increasing the minimum wage decreases the size of government.
87d
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound ugly, but that statement that the company has a burden of caring for low income people.....that just does not sit well with me.. The first question I would ask of you in a symposium, is just how far does that duty would go, and does it ever stop? And, what is the entity to set such a rule? Is it a government agency?
Yeah but increasing minimum take home pay to match with cost of living will shift the burden of caring for low income people to the company that is employing them.
Increasing the minimum wage decreases the size of government.
Your comment makes me shudder. So a company worth $1M has an employee wage budget of $550,000 plus benefits, and you go to the company and make such a request.This results in making the benefits, income, etc of all employees go up, which makes the benefits, income etc of the owners and managers of the company go down. Everything is leveled out, simply put. Socialism??