Atrus said:
You stated there were only two options, I simply stated another.
You stated that
Atrus said:
people who earn minimum wage are those that want to, or those that have no other choice.
Your example fits both of those two options: She chose her job, but not her wage.
Atrus said:
Why is it then that waiters are expected to get tips? What service is so special about taking orders and waiting tables when the person really doing the significant work is the cook?
I already admitted that it's mostly arbitrary. But once one profession receives tips, expectations are created as to what the base pay for that profession will be and what the pay will be with tips, affecting who gets into the profession and what their expectations are.
Atrus said:
I'm not envious because they pay much tax, I'm pointing out that I pay more tax that goes for the benefit of all eligible Canadians. I've already provided social assistance, which itself does not count (at least not much) the additional volunteer time or donations I put in.
Tipping as a form of social assistance to minimum wage earners is just absurd.
Yeah, I never said that. Back four pages ago, you wrote that the minimum wage was sufficient, arguing it was proportional to educational levels, age, experience, etc. So I was arguing against your general stance on minimum wage. (by the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the fact that women make up a disproportionate percentage of minimum wage earners has to do with the sufficiency of current minimum wage levels.)
Atrus said:
Not being attracted to education is to me, is indicative of laziness. Unless you're a genious, are on the coattails of another genious, or come from a background with a large social saftey net that allows you to screw up, then not getting an education is a good way to end up struggling to pay off your 40 year mortgage doing a job you hate, while your stay at home wife takes care of the kids you barely have time to spend with.
Maybe it indicates laziness; it can also indicate other things: lack of parental encouragement, cultural barriers, and--yes!--even a lack of natural ability. It might also indicate immediate, pressing concerns--such as kids, health problems, current bills, debts--that might make college or university unattractive. It's easy just to dismiss everyone as lazy.
Atrus said:
It's only beyond their control because they didn't plan. What good is it to work like that steel mill or GM plant is going to be there forever? You have no time on the side to learn more marketable skills? Even if I lost both jobs now, I still have enough marketable skills to grab a rung on the economic ladder in a wide number of positions because I have marketable skills and have planned for the worst.
What is beyond a persons control is dependant on what they allow to be beyond their control.
Come on! This sounds like "power-of-positive-thinking" pap. There are many things outside of our control: where, when, and to whom we are born; our genes; the economic conditions of our country; our health, etc.
As for the example of the GM workers, they probably weren't planning too badly at the time they were hired. I think you're expecting omniscience from them. And it's hard to obtain "marketable skills," which change during time, when you're a high-school grad in your forties with a full-time job and a family.
Atrus said:
[snipped anecdotal story about atrus' lovely parents]
Is wealth conditional? Certainly. It's conditional to exploiting available opportunities, and in nations that thrive on capitalistic venture, the opportunities are just about everywhere.
Right, it's just that simple. . . .
Atrus said:
Everyone can't become wealthy. The system is designed to advance the people seeking it, and those that don't at the bottom. Ever notice these people coming from other countries in droves and working harder because wherever they came from offered them little room to maneuver? That is how the world actually is without the comfort of the security blanket of economic superpower. As the world globalizes, they will compete with you and unless you compete, they will crush you.
Really, we're both making value choices here. You're describing a system you want, made of people either at the top or the bottom--winners and losers. But it seems like a self-defeating system when ultimately most people end up near the bottom. And I really don't see why those at the absolute bottom, the poorest and most vulnerable in society, need to be crushed.
(PS I will be entering a fairly closed, credentialist profession: law--which should be fairly immune from this crushing global competition you're referring to.)