|
Grex > Agora41 > #17: How much did the U.S. military spend while you were reading this sentence? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 199 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 100 of 199:
|
Mar 28 04:41 UTC 2002 |
Re #91, #87 and #22: that pay stub was based on ten years' service. You were
just starting out. I was in the middle of my career. When I started in 1975,
my monthly pay was $361 (I think) plus room and board. Today, as noted above,
starting pay in the Service is $1,023, plus room and board.
'Twould be more useful to compare your pay in 1987 with that of a private,
just out of boot camp, in 1987. Unfortunately, I don't have a good source
for that information to hand.
|
polygon
|
|
response 101 of 199:
|
Mar 28 04:55 UTC 2002 |
Re 99. MOST employers pay employees more than they minimally have to,
perhaps partly to improve retention, but mostly so they can be more
selective about who they hire. This is NOT an experiment which died with
Henry Ford.
The auto workers in Flint and the coal miners in West Virginia were earning
vastly more than any reasonable minimum wage would ever be. As documented,
e.g., in the recent "Nickels and Dimes" book, minimum wage workers are
undercompensated compared to even the barest concept of what it costs to
live these days.
|
jazz
|
|
response 102 of 199:
|
Mar 28 13:41 UTC 2002 |
I believe a Detroit living wage was calculated at between 10 and 11
dollars, correct?
|
slynne
|
|
response 103 of 199:
|
Mar 28 15:08 UTC 2002 |
I spent a few years living on minimum wage and there were some things
Ehrenreich missed in her book. Ways that I was able to survive on those
low wages that she didnt try like having lots of roommates and whatnot.
Nevertheless, I have to agree that minimum wage workers (and actually
Ehrenreich was looking at workers who made in the $7-$9 range which is
above the legally mandated minimum wage) don't make enough money to
support more than just themselves and really they can only support
themselves well if they team up with others in the same income level. I
mean, if you can get 4 people to share a 2 bedroom apartment and if
they really watch their money and dont spend frivolously, they can have
an adequate standard of living.
|
slynne
|
|
response 104 of 199:
|
Mar 28 15:13 UTC 2002 |
re#100 Ok then. I wonder what the Total Compensation (wage + benefits)
of a private is when compared to the Total Compensation (wage +
benefits) of a minimum wage earner.
I suspect that the military total compensation is much higher. At any
rate, unless they have a shortage of recruits it is high enough and no
raise is necessary.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 105 of 199:
|
Mar 28 16:14 UTC 2002 |
One advantage the minimum-wage worker has: they can work more hours
and get more money. Or they can quit and get a new job. The only way
to get more money in the Service is to get a second job. And you can
only quit when it the contract expires (and maybe not even then: the
"exigencies of the Service", y'know.) (yeah, they can get promoted, too,
but how fast depends upon circumstances not always under their control.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 106 of 199:
|
Mar 28 16:44 UTC 2002 |
Oh I can think of a lot of non compensatory wage differentials that
might lead to higher military pay. The freedom of civilian life is one
of them for sure. The danger associated with being in the military even
in peacetime is another. I am just saying that unless they are having
trouble finding people willing to do the work, there dont need to be
any pay raises. If it isnt enough money to support a family, those with
families might want to consider another line of work when their
contract expires.
Note: If the military suddenly finds itself in a position where it
needs to draft people, *then* they should really think about raising
pay. I am not going to say that there should be no draft because I can
think of situations where they dont have time to let the market work.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 107 of 199:
|
Mar 28 21:35 UTC 2002 |
Like any other kind of work, military service is something that some people
see as their calling in life. It's awful when artists and nurses and teachers
have trouble making ends meet, and it's just as bad when soldiers have that
problem. I have trouble picturing saying to someone, "You know, you shouldn't
complain about poor teacher's wages -- after all, you chose that job."
|
oval
|
|
response 108 of 199:
|
Mar 28 21:46 UTC 2002 |
and really .. we're not going to raise your wages i until there's more
competition for the job @!?!?!?!?!? [backasswards if ya asked me]
|
russ
|
|
response 109 of 199:
|
Mar 28 23:59 UTC 2002 |
Re #101: Again: Why should the minimum wage be a living wage?
Why should anyone expect to be able to support more than a very
spartan lifestyle on unskilled work?
When enough people move beyond unskilled work, it's possible
that the wage will rise (due to demand for labor) to a living
wage. Burger King has offered $9.00/hour in Ann Arbor, so it
is far from impossible.
|
jp2
|
|
response 110 of 199:
|
Mar 29 01:22 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 111 of 199:
|
Mar 29 01:23 UTC 2002 |
right, there should be a maximum wage.
|
jp2
|
|
response 112 of 199:
|
Mar 29 01:37 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 113 of 199:
|
Mar 29 01:39 UTC 2002 |
and the vietnamese kicked our asses.
|
jp2
|
|
response 114 of 199:
|
Mar 29 01:51 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 115 of 199:
|
Mar 29 05:40 UTC 2002 |
...whereas jp2's whiny ass...
|
jazz
|
|
response 116 of 199:
|
Mar 29 13:18 UTC 2002 |
First of all, decide which you're more in love with, because Capitalism
and Democracy aren't friends; one emphasizes equality of individual power
in the vote, and the other emphasizes individual political influence with
little real limit.
|
gull
|
|
response 117 of 199:
|
Mar 29 14:03 UTC 2002 |
Re #104: Don't forget the substantial amounts of money the military
services pay in college tuition, in your benefit analysis.
Re #109: If we need people to do minimum wage type jobs, how do we
reconcile that with the fact that we aren't paying them enough to live
on? If I had a business that required trucks for moving goods around,
and I decided to only pay for 50% of the maintenance those vehicles
required, people would say I was pretty stupid. Of course, there's a
cheaper supply of replacement people than there is replacement trucks.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 118 of 199:
|
Mar 29 14:06 UTC 2002 |
re #117- ya mean the money for college tuition that's a pain in the ass
to actually get access to? Friend of mine tried to use the GI Bill and
got really really screwed (late payments to really late payments or
payments skipped entirely) and ended up not being able to finish school.
|
slynne
|
|
response 119 of 199:
|
Mar 29 14:32 UTC 2002 |
re#107 I dont have a problem with raising teacher's wages because it
leads to more competition for those jobs which should lead to higher
quality people in the positions. You get what you pay for. Although
because of non monetary intangibles aka non-compensatory wage
differentials, teachers do tend to be something of a bargain. People do
choose to take that job for less money *because* it is so rewarding in
other ways. This is apparently true in many other fields. Social
workers make even less than teachers but maybe find the work rewarding.
Let's face it, wage isnt just about value to society of a particular
job.
re#116 You know, Democracy and Socialism can work well together.
Personally, I would LOVE to see out country start putting more money
into social welfare programs. No need for a maximum wage or minimum
wage. Let the market take care of wages and let the government take
care of poor people.
re#117 So you think that businesses have a social responsibility
towards their workers? I dont think that is realistic. This is why I
think it is the government's job to take care of workers. Passing labor
laws (that actually get enforced) is one way for the government to take
charge.
re#117-118 - I know a couple of people who never would have gone to
college at all if it were not for the GI bill. I know they would say it
is a great program. I would say at least it is better than nothing and
it should be counted as part of the total compensation those in the
military receive (as well as any VA benefits).
|
jazz
|
|
response 120 of 199:
|
Mar 29 14:35 UTC 2002 |
Democracy and some form of socalism do work well enough together, true.
Communism probably isn't viable and depends very heavily on humanity's best
nature, which hasn't proven very reliable in the past. Capitalism clearly
works, as it emulates several aspects of natural history, but as it stands
does not have the basic checks and balances of natural history.
|
jp2
|
|
response 121 of 199:
|
Mar 29 17:37 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 122 of 199:
|
Mar 29 18:00 UTC 2002 |
<blinks>
|
xix
|
|
response 123 of 199:
|
Mar 29 20:43 UTC 2002 |
Capitalism is very political based on the truth that those with the most
money have the most influence on the politicians. Which is not quite very
democratic...
|
jp2
|
|
response 124 of 199:
|
Mar 29 20:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|