Do you think this is a reasonable goal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
asp3

asp3

Senior Member
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
I don't want this to get political by bringing in any ways to get there or who can get us there. I'd just like to know if you think this is a reasonable goal.

Is it reasonable for our society to have a goal that anyone who is working to the level they are capable of up to 40 hours a week should be able to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare?

Please use your own definition of what you consider to be reasonable and let's not discuss that aspect of the question.
 

I don't know about "reasonable," but people should be able to survive working a full-time, minimum wage job without having to have roommates, meaning they should be able to afford a small apartment, food, and transportation. Healthcare should be free for the working poor -- paid either by the employer or the government. I think they're able to get that now through the ACA.

To achieve an adequate standard of living here in Denver, the minimum wage would have to be about $13 an hour, but it's expensive to live here. You could live much better in other states making that much.

Of course, if you have a bunch of kids, you're not going to do very well on $13/hour. People need to be responsible. Maybe there should be penalties for people who have children they can't afford to take care of. I don't know what those penalties would be, though, since it would probably hurt the kids, and it's not their fault their parents are irresponsible.
 
I would love nothing more than to see the day where every working person, no matter what their wage or salary, could afford a nice, clean, comfortable place to call their own, proper food, transportation, and healthcare, and in addition to, I would also love nothing more than to see the day when homelessness is ended.

Is my way of thinking real, no, but it has never stopped me from dreaming.
 
asp3 said:
I don't want this to get political by bringing in any ways to get there or who can get us there. I'd just like to know if you think this is a reasonable goal.

Is it reasonable for our society to have a goal that anyone who is working to the level they are capable of up to 40 hours a week should be able to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare?

Please use your own definition of what you consider to be reasonable and let's not discuss that aspect of the question.
Click to expand...
I think it is a reasonable goal, but like many things in life, "hell is in the details."
 
asp3 said:
Is it reasonable for our society to have a goal that anyone who is working to the level they are capable of up to 40 hours a week should be able to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare?
Click to expand...
Good 'goal'

Hell, immigrants did that the hard way.....living in tenements, working 24/7, until they could afford a place of their own.

As far as 'anyone who is working to the level they are capable of up to 40 hours a week should be able to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare'

Falls into many thoughts

My first thought is..... that smacks of communism
Communism looks good....on paper

As it stands, here in the US, you have opportunity
Opportunity to work yer butt off to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare'
 
asp3 said:
Is it reasonable for our society to have a goal that anyone who is working to the level they are capable of up to 40 hours a week should be able to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare?
Click to expand...
We had that back in the 70s, I supported my wife and 3 kids on just a single income. Nowadays families can't get by without at least two incomes. Workers wages have not kept up with the cost of living since the 80s, when a series of tax cuts were passed benefiting business and the wealthy.
 
Its worth bearing in mind too that in my youth, besides my father providing for his family, there was a "day of rest" on a Sunday, when most places were shut, and few worked, (my dad as a farmer being one of them, but some farmer baulked at doing anything other than essential work, like milking and feeding cattle).
I think the aim is reasonable, but whether its reasonable or not, unless widespread ideology perhaps changes, I'd guess we'll end up striving to get more and more, rather than be satisfied with enough.
 
I can't quite grasp "reasonable".. I look at my grandparents, He worked all his life so he could have a home and some land, more than 40 hours a week. My grandmother gardened and canned and scrimped so they could have. They lived in an average home and lived and average 1940's life. My parents worked hard, and they owned 40 acres, but they earned it by their hard work... and work was always more than 40 hours a week. We lived a less than average 1960's life. I have had a good life with a good income... and my children lived a good 1990's life. Now my children, they work more than 40 hours a week to have a home and the good life for this century.

Working 40 hours doesn't create the magic world. It doesn't give you a ticket to "have" if you don't put in the effort to go with the work. Anyone can make money, but what do they do with that money? They buy $1000 cell phones with high phone bills, $60,000 vehicles with payments for 7 years, and eating out on every possible occasions. I don't see "scrimp" anywhere in society any more. Just "give me".

No, don't spend your money on what you want, and expect that your needs should be guaranteed. That isn't in the realm of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is living in the moment.
 
Irwin said:
Healthcare should be free for the working poor -- paid either by the employer or the government. I think they're able to get that now through the ACA.
Click to expand...


If the working poor don't have insurance, there is a reason, If you ask the uninsured, you will get an excuse, which is different than the reason.

ACA was built on shifting sand... it has never been successful, and it never will be. The government should have addressed the problems with medicare fraud, overcharges in the billing processes, and outrageous pharmacy billings. All that should have been addressed before building a poorly structured program on a rocky foundation. Thank goodness, that the penalty for not having insurance is gone because it was certainly discriminating. Many times, people choose not to buy health insurance. Without the mandate for health insurance, it is a choice, and they choose not to have insurance.
 
asp3 said:
I don't want this to get political by bringing in any ways to get there or who can get us there. I'd just like to know if you think this is a reasonable goal.

Is it reasonable for our society to have a goal that anyone who is working to the level they are capable of up to 40 hours a week should be able to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare?

Please use your own definition of what you consider to be reasonable and let's not discuss that aspect of the question.
Click to expand...
I think we should be able to earn enough money to rent a decent place, have a decent vehicle (not a piece of crap) health insurance and be able to have enough money to get things done like eye glasses and repairs to vehicle and things like that without having to rely on credit cards or try to get loans to pay off. I think it's ridiculous that some of these places give us barely enough to get by on so we have to live like frickin teenagers. By the time I tally up just my monthly spending is probably $1000 a month and that's just for what I need. If an emergency comes up I gotta get the credit card out. I don't want to kill myself with 2 jobs just to get by. At some point a person has to rest.
 
I think that it is an admirable goal.

Over the years people have attempted to meet the goal by creating a minimum wage and raising/adjusting it from time to time.

When the minimum wage is raised we always seem to have the same two problems. The market adjusts to the higher minimum wage by raising prices so the increased purchasing power is quickly lost. The second is that when the minimum wage is raised it knocks everyone making higher wages back a rung or two on the ladder of success.

IMO the best thing that we can do to help level the playing field is to make sure that everyone has access to a good education and a fair opportunity to make a decent living for themselves and their families. The rest should be left up to them.
 
Last edited:
Most people create their own "lifestyle"....via hard work, and sensible spending.

While watching the evening news yesterday, there was a good image of what is wrong with so many people. The news showed a massive line of people waiting in their cars for some food from a local Food Bank. The vast majority of those cars were relatively new SUV's, etc., costing $30K, or more. Parked immediately behind the newscaster, and first in line, was a new Mercedes, which probably cost $50K.

There is No shortage of people who need to re-think their "priorities".
 
Don M. said:
Most people create their own "lifestyle"....via hard work, and sensible spending.

While watching the evening news yesterday, there was a good image of what is wrong with so many people. The news showed a massive line of people waiting in their cars for some food from a local Food Bank. The vast majority of those cars were relatively new SUV's, etc., costing $30K, or more. Parked immediately behind the newscaster, and first in line, was a new Mercedes, which probably cost $50K.

There is No shortage of people who need to re-think their "priorities".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that too! I wasn't sure if the people in the Mercedes were there for food, but then sure enough, they loaded a box of food into the back seat! WTF?

Of course, oil companies got billions of dollars through the pandemic bailout, so there's that. Some people have no shame.
 
Yes, in the '60's and '70's all it took was one person in the household to work and pay the bills. All things were much cheaper then. We also had time, free time, in which we could indulge ourselves in our favorite activities. For many, those activities were political, given those years of strife. That's a no-no. No free time to get into mischief. Must work, all the time, on the treadmill, in the rat race; no time to stir things up. That was the plan all along. Not a conspiracy, out in the open with our permission.

But to strictly answer the OP question, YES, of course. Of course it is right to work, to contribute, to earn at least basic needs.
 
The United States stands almost alone among developed nations without some form of universal healthcare. That is a disgrace and needs to be corrected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care

Simply knowing the difference between a need and a want and a habit of spending accordingly (being sure needs are met before spending on wants) will prevent a lot of financial grief.
 
asp3 said:
Is it reasonable for our society to have a goal that anyone who is working to the level they are capable of up to 40 hours a week should be able to afford a reasonable place to live, reasonable food, reasonable transportation and reasonable healthcare?
Click to expand...

The tricky part of this is "anyone who is working to the level they are capable of "

Good goal except that jobs vary in skill required so that creates a difference in the reasonable list.
Then there are problems like this.
https://www.startribune.com/minneap...nit-affordable-housing-development/570836742/

I've seen this type of question posed before & have asked Who that posts here provides employment that meets the goals.
 
Last edited:
Nathan said:
We had that back in the 70s, I supported my wife and 3 kids on just a single income. Nowadays families can't get by without at least two incomes. Workers wages have not kept up with the cost of living since the 80s, when a series of tax cuts were passed benefiting business and the wealthy.
Click to expand...
While today's cost of living has definitely skyrocketed compared to yesteryear, I can't help but think so much of the expense associated with todays lifestyles is brought on by people themselves.

- Brand new everything
- Expensive everything
- Sports for all the kids
- Latest/greatest everything for the kids (clothing, shoes, electronic devices)
- Weekend getaways
- World travel
- Store-bought diapers and baby food
- Dining out regularly

I don't see much in the way of frugal anymore among today's younger families, everything revolves around convenience and bling.
 
Last edited:
Wren said:
It’s hard to generalise as we all have different life styles, if you live beyond your means or, as Irwin says, have a large family finances are stretched
Click to expand...
This is why a question like this is difficult to answer. We have different expectations, depending on what we are used to.
On the one hand, if someone has worked hard at school, passed exams and gained the qualifications needed to pursue their chosen career, I think they deserve to earn a good standard of living.
If someone is less able or who is not given the same opportunities, they will end up in less skilled employment, with a lower income.
Which is fairer?
 
I took my car to a drive thru car wash the other day, and the attendant, who looked to be about 40, whined about only making minimum wage. And he told me he was a single parent, and then asked for a tip. I gave him one, but I had to wonder why he hadn't developed a better skill set. I mean, if the only thing you can do at that age is clean someone's windshield, that's on you. If you've made a lifetime of bad decisions, that's on you.
 
Knight said:
The tricky part of this is "anyone who is working to the level they are capable of "

Good goal except that jobs vary in skill required so that creates a difference in the reasonable list.
Then there are problems like this.
https://www.startribune.com/minneap...nit-affordable-housing-development/570836742/

I've seen this type of question posed before & have asked Who that posts here provides employment that meets the goals.
Click to expand...
This is appalling and people need to discuss this. Meanwhile in another area some rich developer put up some apartments, houses with no issues and made a ton of money renting and selling them for top dollar. What about the people that could have lived there. Never mind the environmental impact.
 
It's a good goal. I don't know how realistic. Thinking back I could have done so much better with my money. Never got in debt but spent it. Wish I had saved more although I have saved. You know that if you could do it all over again.....

It's hard to judge others in my opinion. One never knows what someone dealt with. A kid who grew up with abuse in the home may have a very different path than one who didn't and their parents encouraged them and helped them through college. I know what it's like to be a complete mess at 18 and I had to make it in the world. Or not.
 
Remy said:
It's a good goal. I don't know how realistic. Thinking back I could have done so much better with my money. Never got in debt but spent it. Wish I had saved more although I have saved. You know that if you could do it all over again.....

It's hard to judge others in my opinion. One never knows what someone dealt with. A kid who grew up with abuse in the home may have a very different path than one who didn't and their parents encouraged them and helped them through college. I know what it's like to be a complete mess at 18 and I had to make it in the world. Or not.
Click to expand...
My sentiment to a T.
 
Aunt Marg said:
While today's cost of living has definitely skyrocketed compared to yesteryear, I can't help but think so much of the expense associated with todays lifestyles is brought on by people themselves.

- Brand new everything
- Expensive everything
- Sports for all the kids
- Latest/greatest everything for the kids (clothing, shoes, electronic devices)
- Weekend getaways
- World travel
- Store-bought diapers and baby food
- Dining out regularly

I don't see much in the way of frugal anymore among today's younger families, everything revolves around convenience and bling.
Click to expand...
Marketing and shrewd advertising have melted away traditional values and encourage self gratifying consumption of goods and services.

If we all adhered to the lifestyle practices of the 1930s~40s we would have an economy stuck in the 30s-40s.

The upside to that is we would all own mint condition classic automobiles. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top