AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Actually two of the women are single parenting. Having said that, they all work for mid size companies not major conglomerates and remain because of the fairness of the policies and practices.

I do understand your point concerning being the sole source of income.

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

WalMart is a bad example because their practice has always been to not have many full-time employees since Sam Walton died. He ran the company, for the most part, the way most companies should be run. After he died, the BoD started the company down a bad track, IMO. I refuse to shop there anymore. Made in America used to be the motto of WalMart. Now it is Made in China, Assembled in America, if you are lucky. Consumers are the cause of that "little" change. Most American's want cheap, low quality disposable goods instead of high quality, more expensive goods.

WalMart, McDonald's, Burger King, these employers are not the ones that normally maintain a large staff of full-time employees at the store level. Turnover is high so why should companies of this type invest in full-time staff. Many companies have also moved to using temporary agencies to handle their hiring needs and if they find a good employee, they sometimes hire them in-house. But, because of Obamacare, many no longer do even this much.

If a company wants to get away from the requirement to pay overtime, they can just promote that person to a salaried position.

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

Please explain "acceptable standard of living".
What defines an "acceptable standard of living"?
How was it determined?
And if you want me to see your side of the picture and agree with it, please do not try to pass off generalizations as standards.
Not everyone has to have a cell phone.
Not everyone has to have cable TV.
Not everyone has to have home access to a computer or internet.
From my perspective, these are luxuries of convenience, not necessities. I have to work to afford them, and if I cannot afford them I should not have them. If I cannot afford them and have them, I am living beyond my means.

The above are just three examples of what the left in this country believe are needs of everyone that should be fulfilled by those who can afford it. If those who cannot afford it cannot get it, it is not fair.
Since I have moved on to that topic, explain what fair is or what is fair. Fair according to Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair
That is another thrown about by the left that just irks me to no end. Is it fair that I work hard just to have the efforts of my hard work confiscated to go to the awaiting hands of someone who refuses to work because someone convinced them everyone else owes them?

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Let me start with your last item/question. NO, it is not fair to have your "work confiscated" to provide for people who will not support themselves!
"Acceptable standard of living", to me, would be a adequate (not McMansion size) size abode with heating, running water and not bug infested. It would further include the ability to afford groceries to prepare (at home) healthy balanced meals.
The subject of cell phones (pun) is subjective. Many people are using cell phones as opposed to "home land line" phones. Having said that, you can go into Walmart, Target, 7-11, etc. and purchase for $19.99 a basic phone plus $19.99 for a 30 minute card (which often triples to 90 minutes). All this web browsing, email, etc. extraneous garbage is NOT necessary. For $40 (not including tax), you now have 90 days of phone service. Landlines are now up to about $50 when you include all the taxes and fees. Does any individual need some high priced cell phone plan? No, unless it is for business and that is a business tax write off.
Cable TV- Does the phrase preacher to the choir work for you? If I wanted to take up more of your time then you would wish, you would be reading beyond your patience line.
Computer and Internet may depend upon when you live. My area of residence has many libraries with many computers and Internet access. They further have a policy providing priority to students after school to accomplish necessary research for academic work. They, in fact, monitor to be sure it is not game playing, etc. As a personal note, my nephew does have Internet access; however, his three children are VERY limited in its usage. They have shelves of board games, art supplies, books and building type toys and a box of "dress up" to play imaginary games.
One costly item that is becoming a requirement in education is electronic readers. I gave my original Nook to a relative as her school was requiring them for library book loan at school. It is a parent's responsibility to find the wherewithal to provide necessary educational tools. A parent may have to find savings somewhere to purchase such an item; however, no one says it has to be the Mercedes model.
Very many people have forgotten how to actually budget, plan meals (at home as opposed to grab pre made at the store) and understand not every new thing is necessary to life.
Hopefully, this has answered the concerns and points you brought forth to me.
I look forward to continued posting with you on other subjects. As a selfish request, please read my "forum" Put On Your Suit Coat. I need mental support on this issue as today I am still angry about Friday.

PoliticalOrphan

Yes, I thought about it, after I posted, that I should have said he/she. Same situation either way. Everyone has to do what is best for them. I do believe the employee should always have the choice between overtime and comp time, if comp time is available. Many do really need the extra income.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I understood by insinuation your post was about the "primary bread earner" and not g****r specific to men. As you say, each family must do what works to their best interests.

PoliticalOrphan

mmccarty12-I don't know who jerked your chain. I never said or implied that everyone has to have cell phones, cable TV, or internet. I refer to an acceptable standard of living as being pretty much what AuntiE described in her post above. I never suggested these things should be given to anyone free. How did you get that from my post? I grew up lower middle class in the 50's. I know about making do. I'm talking about, if a man (or woman) wants to work 20 hrs. a week overtime to provide some extras for his family, it should not be "confiscated", as you put it, by the company offering something else besides his OT pay for the work performed. As I said, if a person is on the lower end of the wage scale, it may be necessary to work overtime just to provide the basics. Those people pay the same inflated prices for gas, medicine, and groceries as everyone else. How is a man/woman getting something for free, if they are working their A$$ off for it? Quit reading something into my comments that's not there.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Because I try to be objective and read undertones, let me maybe address mmccarty12's issues. We do not know where he resides. He may be in area where he sees many non productive individuals living off his work. I do know that where I reside I personally see many individuals in the grocery store paying with food stamps; however, they are wearing VERY expense designer, name brand tennis shoes and using the most expensive ultimate new cell phone. It can be very irritating. I literally one day tallied in my mind how much all my clothing and groceries cost in comparison to an individual's shoes and phone. My ire was quite high.

PoliticalOrphan

Again, the point of the discussion was whether it was good for employers to be able to avoid paying overtime by promising compensatory time off. It did not involve people on welfare. Obviously, if you're concerned about being paid for overtime, that means you are working for a living. This should not be hard to grasp. Can we ever discuss the pertinent issue(s) without airing all our irrelevant pet political talking points?

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

You need to step back to get the big picture of what is really going on! F*****m is defined as a coalition of banks, corporations and government. The WWII N**IS were F*****TS got rich the old fashioned way, they murdered others for it. According to Jim Marrs author of "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" the N**IS simply took most of their blood money with them and went into hiding. Over the years since the end of WWII the N**IS bought up banks which bought up ever more banks while they did the same thing with corporations. At the same time they infiltrated governments corrupting them from within. Today they are ready to strike taking over with a one world government of F*****M. This EVIL owns the Democratic Party and it seems the Republican leadership as well. The Muslim Barry Soetoro is controlled by the former N**I Hitler youth, George Soros the Jewish turncoat selling out fellow Jews to the Death Camps!


The dots are out there just connect them!

A book of racial struggle


Another book of racial struggle


Want our guns? Come and take them!

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

PoliticalOrphan,
This was your reply to AuntiE:



What jerked my chain was your comment about acceptable standard of living. I hear all the time people deserve the right to an acceptable standard of living. That is what I was questioning. Unfortunately, many hard-core l*****t liberals have a warped, IMO, sense of what an acceptable standard of living is. I asked you to explain your statement and describe an acceptable standard of living. As for the my comments about cell phones and the like I called luxuries, those are items that I have heard liberals throw out as being part of an acceptable standard of living. They have also made comments like making enough money on which to live. That is a general statement and I was asking you to define your definition of acceptable standard of living without those kinds of comments because, to me, they would invalidate your argument immediately and be meaningless.

I, not you, blatantly used the cell phone, internet , cable tv and other like items to make my point of what I do not define as necessities of an acceptable standard of living.

AuntiE is completely correct about one assumption she made about me, I am tired of seeing someone on welfare having "nicer" stuff than me. I am tired of seeing food stamps and EBT cards being used to buy preprocessed foods like TV dinners instead of fruits, vegetables and meats that need to be cooked at home. I am tired of someone on welfare believing they should have cable tv for free. I am tired of the fraud, waste and abuse of government programs by people who think they are owed. What is worse is that if I make it to retirement, 27 years from now, I won't even have the benefit of Social Security if the jerks in the government do not get their stuff together.

Another thing that irritates me are those people on welfare, especially in a metropolitan area with good to great mass t***sit, believing they have a right to own and drive a car.

A lot of hard-core l*****t liberals believe what are considered luxuries are NEEDS and people have a RIGHT to them. But if I start thinking I should get my cell phone, cable and internet for free, I am a bad person.

AuntiE, in reply to your post, I agree with some, but would like to make one counterpoint. The problem is not the affordibility of an item or access, it is that there are those who believe they should get it for free regardless of the cost or who actually has to foot the bill.

newrose

We have to truly believe good change is possible. If we don't we
will not do all each of us individually can do to bring it about. We have to recognize that all bosses, businesses, employees are NOT THE SAME. They are NOT all bad or all good. The same holds true for members of political parties.
I have been an employee and I have been an employer. I have seen
the difficulties from both sides. Sometimes I have been part
of the problem. I hope I am now more involved in solutions that are
beneficial to all and not just one group or the other or a an elite
few.
It is amazing what learning to sincerely look & listen at the other person
or persons position can teach all of us. If we are teachable . There is a saying " about being
wise as a serpant and gentle as a dove ". Being informed from
the viewpoint of both sides helps us to be more wise and can
help us to be more effective.
Much of what is reported today is "MARKETING" and not t***h.
That is true on both sides workers and bosses. That is true
in all parties.
No matter what political theory we promote it will be evil if it
is lead by those whose motives and agenda's are evil. It isn't
the political theory or philosophy that is evil it is a portion of
the people.
Many of those people would actually do better if
they truly knew better. Some of them are as much victims of
those that have raised them up as those they victimize. We
often see the puppets. We have failed to discover the behind
the scenes puppet masters. We have blamed the puppets. While the puppet masters laugh at our blindness and ignorance.
We need to know more about our history ! We need to more about the persons who began our country and their agendas and how it has played out thus far. Without an understanding of past mistakes and constructive plans and implementation then we just make the same old mistakes over and over. We dress it up in a new package and give it a new name. It's called marketing. Not
problem solving. It's also deception and not t***h. It takes t***h
and acceptance and wise application of it to set us free.
Disfunctional loyalties, denial and infighting won't fee anyone.

PoliticalOrphan

ABBAsFernando, mmccarty12, and newrose, I see nothing in any of your 3 posts that I can argue with, or find much fault with. Kudos to you. PoliticalOrphan

PoliticalOrphan

Didn't mean to leave you out, AuntiE - good job.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

McCarty, here I come with one of my usual catch phrases. Preacher to the choir. Reference your last sentence.