There's a lot of response to stuff like that which amounts to "30k? A year? I make that much! That's not fair! I work so much harder than those people"
For awhile people would use the EMT salary, which is also around a paltry 30k/yr to illustrate why those layabout fast food workers should deserve to make as much as these heroes. Without mentioning why said heroes are only making 30k/yr
I have a word document saved with my canned response to this for Facebook posts. Basically it equates to "Well sure but soldiers and EMTs deserve to make more per hour too, so if we raise the MINIMUM WAGE then in theory it should push up the wages of people also making over minimum. So now the EMTs will make more."
I do the same my go to is " Yes and do you maybe see a problem with that? They should be making more."
Some people go " prices will go up!" and I have to explain that no they won't. not in any appreciable way Gas has more effect on retail prices than employee wages
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I spend roughly $15k a year in after tax dollars on rent and utilities while living in one of the lowest cost regions in the nation. I could not fathom trying to make ends meet on only $30k.
Cost of Living in PA isn't terrible but if you live near the airport it's impossible to find apartments with reasonable rent . The new hot bullshit is renting apartments weekly. I get free financial planing with my union so I'm hopefully going to be able to find a house soon but god I wish I could move now.
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
maybe I was lucky but last time I paid rent it was $350 a month for a room in a house in a small college town, and I had amenities that came with living in a house like washer and dryer, full kitchen, and the like.
maybe I was lucky but last time I paid rent it was $350 a month for a room in a house in a small college town, and I had amenities that came with living in a house like washer and dryer, full kitchen, and the like.
i know folks that would be grateful if they could find that at double the price.
+29
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Seriously that exact situation would run you 2 grand in places like nyc and San Francisco
maybe I was lucky but last time I paid rent it was $350 a month for a room in a house in a small college town, and I had amenities that came with living in a house like washer and dryer, full kitchen, and the like.
i know folks that would be grateful if they could find that at double the price.
I'm moving next month and looking for a new place and I would literally kill for that deal.
ph blake on
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I paid 475 a month for a room in a dilapidated house with a crazy landlady who boarded dogs and this crazy fuckin' crackhead with temper issues
There's a lot of response to stuff like that which amounts to "30k? A year? I make that much! That's not fair! I work so much harder than those people"
For awhile people would use the EMT salary, which is also around a paltry 30k/yr to illustrate why those layabout fast food workers should deserve to make as much as these heroes. Without mentioning why said heroes are only making 30k/yr
I have a word document saved with my canned response to this for Facebook posts. Basically it equates to "Well sure but soldiers and EMTs deserve to make more per hour too, so if we raise the MINIMUM WAGE then in theory it should push up the wages of people also making over minimum. So now the EMTs will make more."
Military pay is also pretty good overall. People complain, but given I average higher than the national household median and get a ton of benefits it's a pretty great deal as far as I'm concerned.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
There's a lot of response to stuff like that which amounts to "30k? A year? I make that much! That's not fair! I work so much harder than those people"
For awhile people would use the EMT salary, which is also around a paltry 30k/yr to illustrate why those layabout fast food workers should deserve to make as much as these heroes. Without mentioning why said heroes are only making 30k/yr
I have a word document saved with my canned response to this for Facebook posts. Basically it equates to "Well sure but soldiers and EMTs deserve to make more per hour too, so if we raise the MINIMUM WAGE then in theory it should push up the wages of people also making over minimum. So now the EMTs will make more."
Military pay is also pretty good overall. People complain, but given I average higher than the national household median and get a ton of benefits it's a pretty great deal as far as I'm concerned.
I remember making about twenty grand a year after taxes (I think)
which doesn't seem like much but I didn't have to pay for housing or food or healthcare literally ever so nearly all of it wound up being disposable
There's a lot of response to stuff like that which amounts to "30k? A year? I make that much! That's not fair! I work so much harder than those people"
For awhile people would use the EMT salary, which is also around a paltry 30k/yr to illustrate why those layabout fast food workers should deserve to make as much as these heroes. Without mentioning why said heroes are only making 30k/yr
I have a word document saved with my canned response to this for Facebook posts. Basically it equates to "Well sure but soldiers and EMTs deserve to make more per hour too, so if we raise the MINIMUM WAGE then in theory it should push up the wages of people also making over minimum. So now the EMTs will make more."
Military pay is also pretty good overall. People complain, but given I average higher than the national household median and get a ton of benefits it's a pretty great deal as far as I'm concerned.
I remember making about twenty grand a year after taxes (I think)
which doesn't seem like much but I didn't have to pay for housing or food or healthcare literally ever so nearly all of it wound up being disposable
Which, shitty as Mississippi may have been, went a looooooooong way there.
It's not really practical at all but when you're in the barracks it's possible to spend almost none of your pay.
maybe I was lucky but last time I paid rent it was $350 a month for a room in a house in a small college town, and I had amenities that came with living in a house like washer and dryer, full kitchen, and the like.
that sounds pretty good!
The average rent in the pittsburgh area ( not pittsburgh which isn't an option for me) is 550. If I'm lucky they include one utility and maybe have 2 bedrooms so a room mate is an option( its not for me)
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Here in Philly I pay $331/month for my part of a 2-bedroom apartment. There are two other people here (a couple) who share the other bedroom. Also gas heat is included in the rent. I've previously rented entire row houses (with anywhere from one to five roommates) in the city for not much more than that.
Which is great for me because I also pay about $600 per month in student loans.
There's a lot of response to stuff like that which amounts to "30k? A year? I make that much! That's not fair! I work so much harder than those people"
For awhile people would use the EMT salary, which is also around a paltry 30k/yr to illustrate why those layabout fast food workers should deserve to make as much as these heroes. Without mentioning why said heroes are only making 30k/yr
I have a word document saved with my canned response to this for Facebook posts. Basically it equates to "Well sure but soldiers and EMTs deserve to make more per hour too, so if we raise the MINIMUM WAGE then in theory it should push up the wages of people also making over minimum. So now the EMTs will make more."
Military pay is also pretty good overall. People complain, but given I average higher than the national household median and get a ton of benefits it's a pretty great deal as far as I'm concerned.
I remember making about twenty grand a year after taxes (I think)
which doesn't seem like much but I didn't have to pay for housing or food or healthcare literally ever so nearly all of it wound up being disposable
Which, shitty as Mississippi may have been, went a looooooooong way there.
It's not really practical at all but when you're in the barracks it's possible to spend almost none of your pay.
Yep, which is why you see so many E-nothings buying brand new cars or whatever. Disposable income for single enlisted personnel is actually pretty good.
I spend roughly $15k a year in after tax dollars on rent and utilities while living in one of the lowest cost regions in the nation. I could not fathom trying to make ends meet on only $30k.
Conversely
I've never made more than $18k a year in my entire life
I, too, cannot fathom what it's like to live off of $30k a year, but for completely different reasons than you
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
With my new job working for a small city, I should bring in (after taxes) around a little under 18,000 this year.
This is pretty much because, outside of the summer quarter, I am restricted to working under 28 hours (or else they'd have to offer my medical benefits).
Come November I'll be able to cut my rent/utilities down to $500 though per month, so there is that...
Here in Philly I pay $331/month for my part of a 2-bedroom apartment. There are two other people here (a couple) who share the other bedroom. Also gas heat is included in the rent. I've previously rented entire row houses (with anywhere from one to five roommates) in the city for not much more than that.
Which is great for me because I also pay about $600 per month in student loans.
so apparently, I should move to philly
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
i suppose if the united states government proved itself crazy enough to nuke the caymans a whole lot of other tax havens would start thinking twice
except switzerland, which would double down probably. I imagine the entire population of switzerland has the capacity to retreat into sub-alpine fortresses at a moment's notice
Tax avoidance is not generally a cause of concern to the US (and the UK) governments because the kind of people who employ methods of tax avoidance are the kind of people who make up those governments
It's why you see far more political will to hammer benefit fraudsters than tax avoidance, even though benefit fraudsters cost a fraction of a fraction of the tax revenue lost through avoidance.
Tax avoidance is not generally a cause of concern to the US (and the UK) governments because the kind of people who employ methods of tax avoidance are the kind of people who make up those governments
It's why you see far more political will to hammer benefit fraudsters than tax avoidance, even though benefit fraudsters cost a fraction of a fraction of the tax revenue lost through avoidance.
Major US corporations have been for years trying to get a one-time repatriation tax holiday. It happened once, and even with the proviso that the funds would go to employees (i.e., they'd hire people) instead of the shareholders it didn't work. Since then Congress has pretty consistently said "nope". I occasionally see news of a compromise floated but so far nothing has gone anywhere.
Tax avoidance is not generally a cause of concern to the US (and the UK) governments because the kind of people who employ methods of tax avoidance are the kind of people who make up those governments
It's why you see far more political will to hammer benefit fraudsters than tax avoidance, even though benefit fraudsters cost a fraction of a fraction of the tax revenue lost through avoidance.
Major US corporations have been for years trying to get a one-time repatriation tax holiday. It happened once, and even with the proviso that the funds would go to employees (i.e., they'd hire people) instead of the shareholders it didn't work. Since then Congress has pretty consistently said "nope". I occasionally see news of a compromise floated but so far nothing has gone anywhere.
Yeah. So long as there's even the slimmest chance of this ever happening, that money's staying put. They're obligated to hold some amount of liquid assets or something like that, and keeping it in an offshore bank to fulfill that obligation is ideal. If they DO end up actually needing that money, they'll take the tax hit to repatriate it, and if they get a tax holiday then they'll jump on that (since hey, free money) but otherwise they're sitting on it.
It's an awful situation that many people are happy to ignore. To an extent I can agree with an attempt to expose people to that, like it or not. It's terrible, but it's also something people need to know about.
At the same time, I don't have children. Maybe I don't appreciate the impact.
Again, I get the importance of a shocking image to draw attention to an important story that someone may otherwise ignore
But putting a dead kid on the front page of one of the largest newspapers that will be in all sorts of public locations viewable by people of all ages and walks of life is pretty over the line
I'm actually gonna ask my manager when he comes in if he wants me to put them out or not cause if I was in his position I would not
Speaking primarily as a parent fuck the WSJ because you can achieve the same shit without showing a drowned toddler on the beach. It's fucking ghoulish.
I just checked USA Today and they have an image of a soldier carrying a screaming baby and then at the bottom of the article a warning that says the story inside contains images of a dead child which readers may find distressing
That's pretty much the best way to go about it I think? I'd rather not see the image at all but there's definitely a valid argument to be made for its use but hey maybe don't put it on the front goddamn page above the fold
This reminds me about when the takeaway on npr played audio of someone being executed and then afterwards said "what you just heard was someone being killed"
You don't have to literally force people to see/hear that stuff to get your point across. Give a warning. USA today did it exactly right.
A buddy of mine watched the video of the news reporter and cameraman being shot, and then tried to pass me his phone so I could watch it, as if it was the most natural thing in the world.
Like, he could not comprehend why I would choose not to watch video of two people being executed.
Posts
Wait, is this the new 'A Modest Proposal'?
I do the same my go to is " Yes and do you maybe see a problem with that? They should be making more."
Some people go " prices will go up!" and I have to explain that no they won't. not in any appreciable way Gas has more effect on retail prices than employee wages
i know folks that would be grateful if they could find that at double the price.
I'm moving next month and looking for a new place and I would literally kill for that deal.
it was less than ideal
Military pay is also pretty good overall. People complain, but given I average higher than the national household median and get a ton of benefits it's a pretty great deal as far as I'm concerned.
I remember making about twenty grand a year after taxes (I think)
which doesn't seem like much but I didn't have to pay for housing or food or healthcare literally ever so nearly all of it wound up being disposable
Which, shitty as Mississippi may have been, went a looooooooong way there.
It's not really practical at all but when you're in the barracks it's possible to spend almost none of your pay.
that sounds pretty good!
The average rent in the pittsburgh area ( not pittsburgh which isn't an option for me) is 550. If I'm lucky they include one utility and maybe have 2 bedrooms so a room mate is an option( its not for me)
Indiana. There is nothing here
well, that's what you get when you live in a town with under 5,000 people
Which is great for me because I also pay about $600 per month in student loans.
Yep, which is why you see so many E-nothings buying brand new cars or whatever. Disposable income for single enlisted personnel is actually pretty good.
Conversely
I've never made more than $18k a year in my entire life
I, too, cannot fathom what it's like to live off of $30k a year, but for completely different reasons than you
This is pretty much because, outside of the summer quarter, I am restricted to working under 28 hours (or else they'd have to offer my medical benefits).
Come November I'll be able to cut my rent/utilities down to $500 though per month, so there is that...
so apparently, I should move to philly
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
except switzerland, which would double down probably. I imagine the entire population of switzerland has the capacity to retreat into sub-alpine fortresses at a moment's notice
It's why you see far more political will to hammer benefit fraudsters than tax avoidance, even though benefit fraudsters cost a fraction of a fraction of the tax revenue lost through avoidance.
It's a story about the European migrant crisis and while I understand it is an important and tragic story that's pretty fuckin gross, WSJ
Major US corporations have been for years trying to get a one-time repatriation tax holiday. It happened once, and even with the proviso that the funds would go to employees (i.e., they'd hire people) instead of the shareholders it didn't work. Since then Congress has pretty consistently said "nope". I occasionally see news of a compromise floated but so far nothing has gone anywhere.
Yeah. So long as there's even the slimmest chance of this ever happening, that money's staying put. They're obligated to hold some amount of liquid assets or something like that, and keeping it in an offshore bank to fulfill that obligation is ideal. If they DO end up actually needing that money, they'll take the tax hit to repatriate it, and if they get a tax holiday then they'll jump on that (since hey, free money) but otherwise they're sitting on it.
Yep my coworker showed me that because he was so mad about it and I was like but now I've seen it too and I'm upset and he was sorry
At the same time, I don't have children. Maybe I don't appreciate the impact.
Like
Again, I get the importance of a shocking image to draw attention to an important story that someone may otherwise ignore
But putting a dead kid on the front page of one of the largest newspapers that will be in all sorts of public locations viewable by people of all ages and walks of life is pretty over the line
I'm actually gonna ask my manager when he comes in if he wants me to put them out or not cause if I was in his position I would not
This just makes me mad
And I'm also mad that I'm mad because photographs of shocking imagery like that can be supremely beneficial for situations like this
But the specific image they used is one that goes beyond that for me into ghoulish shit
If we were in a hotel I would flip my lid if it was in the lobby.
That's pretty much the best way to go about it I think? I'd rather not see the image at all but there's definitely a valid argument to be made for its use but hey maybe don't put it on the front goddamn page above the fold
You don't have to literally force people to see/hear that stuff to get your point across. Give a warning. USA today did it exactly right.
Like, he could not comprehend why I would choose not to watch video of two people being executed.