|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - robhainer
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
76
« on: May 13, 2015, 21:06 »
Awesome stuff, so what is getting sold? Abstracts, landscapes, portraits?
I've not paid for a membership. I only have 60 images available for sale, and I haven't invested much time in it. Not knowing what would sell, I uploaded a mix of landscape, travel, wildlife and model-released lifestyle to test. I've had five sales in about 6 months. Three of the sales netted $175 each, one netted $140 and one netted $105. So, it's not much. I would recommend trying it out like I have before going crazy with it. But I consider it decent for so few images, and I should upload more. I just don't do much of the type of images that are selling for me on that site. Still, I've earned more with 60 images on 500px than I have with 1,000 or so on Veer, where I gave up uploading a couple of years ago.
77
« on: May 09, 2015, 20:07 »
It's actually kinda hard to find.
Go to the pull down menu under your member name and click on "settings." Then click on "store." Then click on "sales." You should have a sale under "pending transactions." You have to wait 45 days until the transaction clears, then you can send it to your Paypal.
I've had a few sales there. They show up right away under pending sales.
I'm going to PM you the same info.
78
« on: May 06, 2015, 14:35 »
Ron,
Upload your landscapes and more artsy stuff to 500px prime. I've had good sales there on that kind of stuff despite only having a few images up.
79
« on: April 27, 2015, 12:28 »
I want the best, The best cameras, The best Glass, Best studio Equipment I can get. Because i can afford it. Does it make me better or more competitive as a working pro? I think so. Can I do stock with a 6MP Camera? Yes I can and have. Can you? I don't know. Any camera sure isn't gonna matter if you can't. Im a admitted gear Junkie and I buy the best for one important reason......Re-sell value. I've sold many lenses for as Much or more than I paid for them...A kit lens? Is a doorstop!!! I learned a long time ago to buy the best. Otherwise, If this is more than a hobby your buying again which costs even More money. It makes no sense whatsoever.
I've had Most leicas made, most Hasselblads and Mamiyas and every pro Nikon Since 1959 , 4 x 5's,8 x 10's and 11 x 14's. I like precision made products. Good cars, Great kitchenware and furniture that lasts. So Sue me....LOL!!
Like said , If this is all I did or wanted. I would still Own a Nikon D100 or a new Gh4.
The megapixel Race has to stop....Why? Because Nikon Nor Canon cannot produce glass to resolve the MP's. Fact. and they Know it. The best Nikon Glass on My D800 Is Pretty Good But you Put a Zeiss prime on and your in another world......A Completely Other world. A D810 is 20% Better than My D800. Im waiting for the next Jump and then will Invest in Zeiss Primes.Probably 20K+
Images and resolution dont Lie. Folks that have no clue Pretend.
Come on...Jump all Over me...It's cool I love Cameras and I love resolution even More. I shot the Pentax 645Z all last week. Very Nice 50MP Camera. Body Only is about $8500.00 +Glass. I also Shot the Phaseone. Not that Impressed. Im Lucky I get to try this stuff for free.
I do think in a year or so.Maybe Longer that Mirrorless is the future.
I think it's important to remember that the top cameras aren't all that expensive anymore. A D800 is only $2500-$3000. You can get good lenses for less than $2,000 each (24-70 2.8 and 70-200 f4), so you can have a complete camera-lens kit for less than $7,000. It used to cost almost that much for a top professional body all by itself. Even if you specialize and add a wide zoom like the 12-24 or get the 70-200 2.8 instead of the f4 and add a couple of flashes, you're still coming in at $8,000 to $10,000 max. Even then, you can cut lens costs by going with fixed lenses if your budget is tight. And like Laurin says, if you go mirrorless like the Fuji system which has great glass, your costs are half of what a good pro Nikon system costs.
80
« on: April 19, 2015, 18:35 »
The good thing about the D800 is that all the megapixels give you more flexibility. You can crop, you can downsize, you can do whatever you need to do and still get good stock images. There's more room for error, not less, when you account for the fact that you can downsize to 16 or 12 mp, or even 6 if you have to. I believe, and I could be wrong, but it seems this way to me, that you get a sharper less noisy image if you downsize from 36 mp to 12 than if you downsize from 16mp to 12.
Sometimes I have to downsize just to get the image to be less than the maximum memory size because it won't upload. Some sites won't accept an image larger than 25 or 30 megabytes. If you have good color and tones like in an HDR, you can easily get a 36mp image to be bigger than 25 megabytes.
Some at Shutterstock have claimed that larger megapixel images sell better. I don't think that's the case. I recently submitted two very similar photos, one lit with natural light, one lit with bounced flash. The bounced flash was 30mp and the natural light one was downsized to 6 mp because I had to shoot it at higher ISO and it wasn't as sharp because I shot it at a slower shutter speed. The natural light one is selling better across the board at all sites it's on.
81
« on: April 15, 2015, 07:13 »
That's weird. What happened on 20 March? Did they cut the deal?
Well, the day I posted that, I start getting them again. Back to normal now.
82
« on: April 10, 2015, 19:02 »
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?
The will to believe is strong.
They pay better than anyone else for most people. If all that mattered were how much they sold each image for, then you should only contribute to 500px or something.
83
« on: April 07, 2015, 14:34 »
This is kind of an excistential discussion.
It is touching the mechanisms in society, and I have a few opinions, that I will not post here.
but I would like to add a few things:
You Americans seem to stirr the same old pot with rotten soup, and it is 100 years old. You have now come to a place in time and history where you cannot exploit nature more and have to exploit humans, being them domestic or abroad.
Thats a sad thing, to feed your greed on other people, and it happens a lot.
Now in Europe, we have been through some kind of evolution, from religious persecution to labour assotiations with endless wars in the background. Royalty and emperors have fallen, and are extinct now, but since we used up all our natural resources 1000 years ago we have found ways to control the exploitation of humans, else its simply not sustainable, we have had time to learn that.
But you guys in the New World havent, you sound like infants in a kindergarden, there are things that are not in your vocabulary, you are still in the exploit nature ot your neigbour faze. But you might just yet be coming our of it.
I live in a country where healthcare and education (universities) is free for everyone, and has been for at least 50 years.
That is good.
We have free healthcare, education and wellfare, meaning you get a place to live and money to support yourself if you cant otherwise.
So we have a strong net of security spread out underneat us. And it is a good thing, because although it costs in taxes, it evens out the differences and make people yeild more and be happier in the long run.
A good and simple point is that when people are educated and healthy, they can work better and produce more.
And that we do.
Cheers.
All that is fine in a monocultural society with a tiny, tiny population. Almost half the states in the U.S. have a larger population than Denmark. The United States has five times as many illegal immigrants as Demark's entire population.
So you really can't compare. It's not the same. All those things you say you get for free aren't free. Someone else pays for them. Our tradition and culture leans more toward self-reliance rather than reliance on central authority. Our ancestors left the kings and tyrants of Europe to build a new home for themselves without the help of central authority. That's how we evolved. I'd personally rather keep it that way. I know others will disagree, but I think we're better off.
You can blame your government for that. A solution could be buying plane tickets to Denmark for your exploited illegal populations. They would be much better off living in a country with and an enlightened population that operates on a higher plane. I am sure they will all appreciate living in a country that offers a strong net of security with free healthcare, education and wellfare to all of its inhabitants.
I'm sure Denmark would be able to afford all that stuff if 20 million immigrants were dropped on them.
84
« on: April 07, 2015, 12:38 »
This is kind of an excistential discussion.
It is touching the mechanisms in society, and I have a few opinions, that I will not post here.
but I would like to add a few things:
You Americans seem to stirr the same old pot with rotten soup, and it is 100 years old. You have now come to a place in time and history where you cannot exploit nature more and have to exploit humans, being them domestic or abroad.
Thats a sad thing, to feed your greed on other people, and it happens a lot.
Now in Europe, we have been through some kind of evolution, from religious persecution to labour assotiations with endless wars in the background. Royalty and emperors have fallen, and are extinct now, but since we used up all our natural resources 1000 years ago we have found ways to control the exploitation of humans, else its simply not sustainable, we have had time to learn that.
But you guys in the New World havent, you sound like infants in a kindergarden, there are things that are not in your vocabulary, you are still in the exploit nature ot your neigbour faze. But you might just yet be coming our of it.
I live in a country where healthcare and education (universities) is free for everyone, and has been for at least 50 years.
That is good.
We have free healthcare, education and wellfare, meaning you get a place to live and money to support yourself if you cant otherwise.
So we have a strong net of security spread out underneat us. And it is a good thing, because although it costs in taxes, it evens out the differences and make people yeild more and be happier in the long run.
A good and simple point is that when people are educated and healthy, they can work better and produce more.
And that we do.
Cheers.
All that is fine in a monocultural society with a tiny, tiny population. Almost half the states in the U.S. have a larger population than Denmark. The United States has five times as many illegal immigrants as Demark's entire population. So you really can't compare. It's not the same. All those things you say you get for free aren't free. Someone else pays for them. Our tradition and culture leans more toward self-reliance rather than reliance on central authority. Our ancestors left the kings and tyrants of Europe to build a new home for themselves without the help of central authority. That's how we evolved. I'd personally rather keep it that way. I know others will disagree, but I think we're better off.
85
« on: April 06, 2015, 20:37 »
Can't say I care much for this change. I don't see how it makes them money. You're trading ELs for a few new sub accounts maybe. It doesn't make sense. I mean they make $100 or whatever, and we get $28. Now we get .38 and they sell a sub for less than that when you figure in the change that lets people download their whole package in a day if they want. They're just cutting prices to compete, with little idea of whether it will make them more money.
86
« on: April 06, 2015, 19:11 »
Even if it is hobby, you add the microstock income to your main income and deduct expenses like lenses and other hardware, parking, millage deductions for photography purposes, accommodation proportional to the time invested in photography.
If you have profit, see if you can still invest in a pension fund, instead of paying more taxes.
Good suggestion. There's all kinds of things you can do. http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-for-Self-Employed-People
87
« on: April 06, 2015, 19:05 »
In Canada there was a big test case involving a rich guy and his horse farm, which set the precedent. You need to have the reasonable expectation of making a profit and are allowed to operate at a loss until you can achieve a profitable operation, in a reasonable amount of time(which I believe is generally accepted as three years). Ditto on your needing a new accountant. At most, they should warn you that you are in a high audit group.
I don't think you're in a high audit group unless you're making $250,000-plus. The main people they go after are doctors, lawyers, accountants, construction contractors. They really like pummel contractors, especially ones who try to pay piece pay instead of a salary or hourly wage. Like $20 for every door your install instead of $20 an hour. The IRS is short-handed, thank God. Going after the little fish is too little reward. And now I'll probably get audited this year even though I'm a tiny fish.
88
« on: April 06, 2015, 19:03 »
Your accountant doesn't know jack. I'd get another one. Especially if you have an LLC that you're taking money into. I PM'd you some of what I do.
89
« on: April 06, 2015, 05:24 »
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible. If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.
exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...
the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.
Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs.
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963
Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.
Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.
I'm not sure how you get that from what I said. The point is that there's always opportunities to get ahead even when things look their worst. And now things aren't even at their worst. And I'm not sure about your world, but in mine, saving up $90k in cash isn't luck. It takes a lot of effort. I even had to cash in my 401K. Maybe you're like Obama and you think the government did that for me. I also had to risk my life savings not knowing if the housing market would ever come back. These are the kinds of things small business owners are doing, which is why they should decide how much to pay their employees. Not the government. You see, it's their money they're paying out and it's their business they're trying to keep afloat. Not yours.
90
« on: April 05, 2015, 16:23 »
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible. If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.
exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...
the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.
Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs.
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963
Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.
91
« on: April 05, 2015, 13:15 »
the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.
You forget that, what you want, has been tried for 50 years in Eastern Europe, with disastrous social consequences. You forget that systems where some "elite" tried to fight the market forces failed miserably.
Before '89, East Germany was way behind West Germany, despite being populated by the same Germans. Look at South an North Korea. Same people, two systems. There is no need to highlight, which one belives that rules and regulations, instead if market forces, will bring prosperity (instead of inequality driven by greedy capitalists  )
You want more government control, more artificial rules, laws and regulations? You don't have to be Nostradamus, to imagine where it will end. Just look at North Korea. History can easily repeat itself.
There isn't much logic in taking an original argument about basic minimum wages in the US and comparing it to the system in North Korea.
Sure it is. North Korea and former economies of Eastern Europe show what happens when government gets too much central control. It can only fail. The trick is striking a good balance, preferably weighed more toward free markets than otherwise. You still have to have some government. It does no good to build a highway and have no rules for using it. All you'd get is chaos. At the same time, nobody wants a highway where you have to drive 35 mph all the time because some people aren't good at driving faster than that.
92
« on: April 05, 2015, 09:02 »
I wonder if the business owners who are tacking on a visible surcharge for the wage increase also tacked on visible surcharges when the cost of coffee went up, or the cost of flour, or the cost of every other thing they buy on a daily basis. Seems to me like they are making more of a political statement.
I suspect the 'political statement' theory is true. But it's also true about the costs of flour, coffee, labor and everything else: When businesses have to pay more to be in business, they have to raise prices or else operate at a loss.
If costs of labor go up 15%, then most of what businesses buy will go up (suppliers eventually have to pay higher labor costs too). The result is that employees make more money, but the things they buy cost more. All that has really happened is inflation. Unfortunately gov can't create new wealth by passing laws.
Yes, prices will go up. But they won't go up as much as salaries will rise. Payroll is just one expense of running a business. Rent, for example, won't double overnight. Equipment has already been purchased. And I'm glad to see the public backlash. Do business owners think people will want to see some poor working person's slight minimum wage increase broken out on their bill? Customers interact with staff, not business owners, most of the time. So customers will have sympathy for the people they know and see every day.
You clearly don't own a business that deals in retail in any significant way. Customers go to where they feel they get the best value, and lot of them think the best value is the cheapest. They don't care how much the employees are paid.
Why do you think foreign car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia and Hyundai build all their plants in the Southeast? They do it because the labor costs are cheaper. And now American workers also have to compete with foreign workers who make $1 a day, and you want to price small businesses out of business because you hate corporations? Left-wing thinking is so nonsensical and bankrupt. Guess what? Unemployment doesn't pay more than minimum wage, and it doesn't last forever.
Many people think "value" means "good quality at a fair price," and actually do care about how much people are paid. If some people weren't willing to pay more for better quality everyone would own a Kia.
Yes, foreign car manufacturers such as Mercedes and BMW absolutely take advantage of the lower wages people are willing to accept in the Southeastwhere people and corporations get a disproportionately higher share of federal aid and government handoutsthen turn around sell those cars to people like me, who get less back in federal "welfare" than they pay in federal taxes. (That includes corporate "welfare.")
I love to hear people who live in the "taker" states complain about other people feeling "entitled" when I live in the state that gets the least amount back from federal taxes of any in the nation. We support you with our taxes. (And that includes the military and the GI Bill.)
Why would I want to put corporations or small businesses out of business? I've worked for both. I've also owned my own retail business. All I'm saying is pay people a minimum wage that keeps pace with the cost of living. Parity. That's all. Assume the cost of your payroll is going to rise each year right along with all your other costs.
If people were going to "coast" on minimum wage they would have done that back in 1978, when minimum wage was worth a lot more than it is now. But somehow that didn't happen.
I really don't get why you're so angry about people being paid an amount of minimum wage that's equivalent to the minimum wage from 40 years ago. Do you own a pizza shop on the side?
First of all, so-called "taker" states get more back than they put in because they have fewer wealthy people. It's leftwing thinking that set that system up, and it continues to do so. You only have people yourself to blame for that. The more you support "taxing the rich" the more money will leave the wealthiest areas and flow to middle and low income areas out of your state. I personally think that's unfair, but you continue to vote against your own interests. Also, Kia cars are built in Georgia, which is not a taker state. It is about even with California and Massachusetts, but still offers a lower cost of living and lower local taxation. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/I explained why I oppose an increase in federal minimum wage already. You just don't care enough to read what I say.
93
« on: April 04, 2015, 13:56 »
I haven't see any of those lately either. Last one was March 20. That's unusual.
94
« on: April 04, 2015, 13:36 »
One main thing that a lot of the workers don't understand is the difference between cost of "living wage" and "minimum wage". The living wage is what you need to have a decent life in that area so for example if you live in San Diego, California you would need around $30 an hour to have a good apartment and food on your table. In Louisville, Kentucky you would need $14 per hour to have the same standard of living. Minimum wage was never intended to be 'Living wage'...
If someone's earnings aren't high enough to match the living wage of the city what's the solution? Use the government to force higher pay? Or maybe let the market dictate who can afford to live there? Can't afford to live in ultra expensive San Diego or Seattle? Simple. The United States is huge with a lot of affordable options. Move to an area you can afford. Debate over.
Except that's not what people are doing. They just complain and expect someone else to fix their problems for them. That seems to be the way of things nowadays. I don't buy that there aren't opportunities for the next generation. There's plenty.
95
« on: April 04, 2015, 10:53 »
Interesting discussion and we will see how it all plays out. I doubt the place raising prices by 21% really had their costs go up by that much, and it sounds like their customers are mostly supporting labor. In general I don't have a lot of sympathy for companies whining about increasing costs while dramatically increasing the pay of their CEOs. For example, a couple of years ago McDonald's increased CEO pay over three times despite decreasing sales (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/mcdonalds-ceo-pay_n_3070833.html?). How can they justify that? CEO compensation rates are made by other CEOs or retired CEOs who sit on their boards - and get paid handsomely for a few meetings a year. It's obscene. When the CEO of McDonald's gets paid more than $27 million in a year I certainly think they can give a bit more to their employees. It's the same with the cable companies - they always raise rates and complain about rising costs while their CEOs get $15-20 million a year. I would think you could survive off the first couple of million and there are plenty of equally qualified people who would do just as well or better for a paltry 4 or 5 million. If they want to cut costs they should start at the top. Then they could pay their rank-and-file employees more, who would stimulate the economy by spending most of what they get, rather than giving more to people who don't need it. They will also find that by paying employes more they will have less turnover, less theft and much more loyalty when they need to ask for something extra. Progressive leaders know this already and that is why most of those companies are thriving.
The thing you don't understand is that a lot of those McDonald's are franchises, owned by people running a small business. They aren't rich CEOs. They're people living in small towns trying to squeeze as much as they can out of their budgets so they can pay their employees and themselves. People who own small businesses often work 7 days a week for no pay in the hopes that they will turn a profit. And you all are talking about hitting them even harder.
96
« on: April 04, 2015, 10:49 »
I wonder if the business owners who are tacking on a visible surcharge for the wage increase also tacked on visible surcharges when the cost of coffee went up, or the cost of flour, or the cost of every other thing they buy on a daily basis. Seems to me like they are making more of a political statement.
I suspect the 'political statement' theory is true. But it's also true about the costs of flour, coffee, labor and everything else: When businesses have to pay more to be in business, they have to raise prices or else operate at a loss.
If costs of labor go up 15%, then most of what businesses buy will go up (suppliers eventually have to pay higher labor costs too). The result is that employees make more money, but the things they buy cost more. All that has really happened is inflation. Unfortunately gov can't create new wealth by passing laws.
Yes, prices will go up. But they won't go up as much as salaries will rise. Payroll is just one expense of running a business. Rent, for example, won't double overnight. Equipment has already been purchased. And I'm glad to see the public backlash. Do business owners think people will want to see some poor working person's slight minimum wage increase broken out on their bill? Customers interact with staff, not business owners, most of the time. So customers will have sympathy for the people they know and see every day.
You clearly don't own a business that deals in retail in any significant way. Customers go to where they feel they get the best value, and lot of them think the best value is the cheapest. They don't care how much the employees are paid. Why do you think foreign car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia and Hyundai build all their plants in the Southeast? They do it because the labor costs are cheaper. And now American workers also have to compete with foreign workers who make $1 a day, and you want to price small businesses out of business because you hate corporations? Left-wing thinking is so nonsensical and bankrupt. Guess what? Unemployment doesn't pay more than minimum wage, and it doesn't last forever.
97
« on: April 03, 2015, 15:40 »
I guess I get bothered by entitlement attitudes. You're not supposed to be given anything, other than the freedom to make a way for yourself. At least that's the way I see things. I understand other people see things differently and think things like health insurance or free education should be a right. I just don't. I think those things should earned.
I don't understand how raising minimum wages to keep up with the cost of living is entitlement. Entitlement would be if people didn't want to work at all and expected to get paid. In most instances, like the company referred to in the beginning of this thread, expenses go up all the time, and business owners raise their rates accordingly. Why wouldn't minimum wage go up as well?
I agree with you that things like health insurance and education shouldn't be free, but how can a kid just graduating from college afford to pay housing, auto, health insurance, student loans, etc. on $7.00/hr? If he has an education, he should be able to get a better paying job. But that isn't going to happen instantaneously, for most. A huge local ad agency here hires graphic designers, requires a bachelors degree, and pays $25,000/yr. starting salary. That isn't much more over minimum wage. But management all drive BMWs and live in half a million dollar homes.
The gap is widening between the poor and the rich. There isn't going to be a middle class soon.
It's entitlement thinking because some people think they "deserve" more pay for a job that requires no education, no experience and very little responsibility. Nobody "deserves" anything. And $25,000 a year is a lot more than minimum wage. A full-time minimum wage worker only makes $15,000 a year. My first job out of school in 1994 only paid $18,000 a year, and I had a family to support.
98
« on: April 03, 2015, 14:51 »
Did you try to serve in the military to pay for school? Did you make that effort? I doubt it.
While I agree with you that there should be no minimum wage laws, but let the free market decide them, I am with Shelma on the education problem.
The American education system is broken. It is based on wealth instead of being based on intellectual merits. Only rich kids can afford to go to universities able to compete with the rest of the world. Moreover, morons can go to ivy league universities, only because they play well some sport? Come-on!
Besides, no parents in a civilized country, should be forced to send their kids to war in order to get a decent education. Losing a limb or being killed only to "serve" (and here, "serve" has his original Latin meaning = slave) the government and the warmongers in congress? No thank you!
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that last part. I think every American has a responsibility to serve their nation, state or community at some point. It doesn't have to be in the military. There are other ways in which you can serve and get educational benefits. I wasn't a slave. I volunteered and got money in education in return. I guess I get bothered by entitlement attitudes. You're not supposed to be given anything, other than the freedom to make a way for yourself. At least that's the way I see things. I understand other people see things differently and think things like health insurance or free education should be a right. I just don't. I think those things should earned.
99
« on: April 03, 2015, 13:28 »
Your facts are little more than spin. They're assumptions based on a biased viewpoint. I was not a privileged person like you were. I had to do military service to pay for my education. But you don't even have to do that. You can apply for grants or use scholarships to go to technical school to learn a useful trade that will guarantee that you will never have to work for minimum wage. In the state where I live, all you need to do is graduate from high school with a C average and you get to go to technical school for FREE.
Those are facts. Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. If it were, every lazy person out there would just go flip burgers and our economy would go in the toilet.
"According to Bloomberg, college tuition and fees have increased 1,120 percent since records began in 1978.
Using this chart to explain its findings, Bloomberg reports that the rate of increase in college costs has been 'four times faster than the increase in the consumer price index.' It also notes that 'medical expenses have climbed 601 percent, while the price of food has increased 244 percent over the same period.'"
The cost of a college education has increased more than 1,000% since 1978, while the minimum wage has increased about 275%.
You can apply for grants or scholarships, but there's no guarantee you'll get them. And everyone can't serve in the military. You can't even get a student loan unless you qualifyI couldn't.
I'm not sure why you are so adamantly opposed to the minimum wage simply keeping pace with the economy.
Because it makes no sense to have the same minimum wage in areas of the country with vastly different costs of living. City leaders in San Francisco can thump their chests all they want about raising the minimum wage there to $15 an hour, but that amount has less spending potential than $7.25 an hour where I live. All I've seen from people with views similar to yours is demagoguery about sticking it to corporations and the "oligarchs" who run small pizza shops. It's garbage. Did you try to serve in the military to pay for school? Did you make that effort? I doubt it. Fact is, people who think they're stuck earning minimum wage haven't made the effort needed to get a job that pays more than minimum wage. If they did, fewer people would be available for those jobs and the demand would increase the pay.
100
« on: April 03, 2015, 10:08 »
In Utopia, $8/hour jobs are held by high school kids who are on their way to college and making a better living.
In America, the oligarchs buy government representation and lobby to pass laws that benefits themselves and their business interests, which has led to increasing disparity between rich and poor. The U.S. now has the largest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. They also cut spending on education, making it more difficult for people to get ahead. This leads to adult heads of households struggling to feed their families on minimum wage salaries. It's more difficult to be upwardly mobile in the U.S. than in many other comparable economies.
Yes, business owners take risksbut one of the challenges of starting a business is being able to make that business profitable while paying a living wage to your employees. Insurance, equipment and other associated costs have not been kept artificially low while inflation marches on. The minimum wage has remained stagnant for decades while businesses are making record profits. Paying your employees is a business expense, and it should be an expense that keeps up with the cost of living. If you can't operate a successful business paying what you need for the assets required to run that business, employees included, you deserve to have to declare bankruptcy.
Sorry. I'm not buying it. It is so easy in this country to get the education and skills needed to make more than minimum wage. There are grants and scholarships all over the place. You don't need a four year degree to have good job skills. In fact, technical school training can sometimes gain you a lot more than a philosophy degree. You can be an auto mechanic or a long haul truck drive and still make a good living.
The problem is people aren't willing to put in the time and effort it takes to make a living wage anymore. If the best you can do is stock shelves at Wal-Mart at age 40, you need to rethink your plan and go back to school.
And I'd hardly consider the owner of a pizza shop an "oligarch." Without people like him, willing to take risks and work hard to get their businesses off the ground, there'd be no jobs at all.
Well, I'm not particularly concerned whether you "buy it" or not. I've stated facts. The cost of living and the cost of education have both risen significantly over the past few decades, and minimum wage has not kept pace. Business owners have therefore been paying less to workers than they should have for the past couple of decades. Even if the minimum wage was increased to $15, it would only bring it up to the level which it should be to keep pace with inflation, and that would not make up for all the wages people have lost over the past couple of decades while they were being underpaid.
When I was college-aged it was possible to work full-time at a minimum wage job and pay your way through college, which is what I did, without student loans, scholarships or financial aid. I took a full course load with a double major and worked 40 hours a week at a convenience store. That's just not possible any more, because the minimum wage has not kept pace with the cost of living or the cost of education.
And of course, it was also possible for me to get into college because I'm a relatively privileged person in this country. I'm white and grew up with two parents in a middle-class town with an excellent public school system near a major metropolitan area (New York). I was born in a big city (New York) so was not intimidated by it.
And no, a pizza shop owner is not an oligarch, but if the business is unsustainable because the owner can't afford to pay his workers, then he "deserves" to go out of business. Does he stiff the pizza oven manufacturers? The furniture manufacturers? His suppliers? His landlord? He pays all those costs despite the fact that they've risen with inflation, and he raises his prices along with inflation. His employees are also a business expense, and paying them should also keep pace with inflation.
Your facts are little more than spin. They're assumptions based on a biased viewpoint. I was not a privileged person like you were. I had to do military service to pay for my education. But you don't even have to do that. You can apply for grants or use scholarships to go to technical school to learn a useful trade that will guarantee that you will never have to work for minimum wage. In the state where I live, all you need to do is graduate from high school with a C average and you get to go to technical school for FREE. Those are facts. Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. If it were, every lazy person out there would just go flip burgers and our economy would go in the toilet.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
