·
Based on my current expenses, if I was working on minimum wage I would incur "$2,180 in debt per year. Or, 6 more hours a week at a second job". Granted, all my expenses were on the highest end of what I spend but still. Scary stuff.
Easily. I did before and a LOT of things were a LOT more expensive. Music was, effectively, out of reach. As was a nice TV. Computer what? Internet what? And cars were more expensive to own/maintain. It was nice that butter and milk was subsidized, but lawzy beef was more expensive. Clothes were more expensive too. Plus I'm too old to date, and my wife wouldn't let me anyway. -XC
flagamuffin · 1685 days ago · link ·
Yeah, I could, pretty easily. 7.25, but cost of housing here is very cheap, which helps, and I'm not in debt which is of course the most crucial thing.
–
–
ButterflyEffect · 1685 days ago · link ·
I was doing fine and then...student loans! Then I got crushed.
thenewgreen · 1685 days ago · link ·
Given my current fixed costs, and quality of life that I enjoy. There is no way in hell I could live on minimum wage. It would be horrible. edit: Took the test and after using the calculator I was $38k in debt
–
–
thenewgreen · 1685 days ago · link ·
My quality of life works for me, it may be crazy to others and may be shabby to some, who knows...? For me, it works. But should I become unable to provide an income for myself and my family, I do think that in this day and age I shouldn't have to worry about basic stuff: Food, shelter, healthcare, education. -Everything beyond that is gravy and it's up to us as individuals to decide how much gravy we pursue. -I work really hard for the gravy :)Do you feel that everyone ought to have the same quality of life you enjoy?
-I think we ought to live in a society where anyone can have the basic comforts of life: shelter, food, healthcare etc. I also feel like we should have a society where everyone has the same access to education.
–
My question was really whether everyone ought/could live at your quality of life. I'm assuming you live significantly above those basics. Whether society is capable of supporting that level of luxury for everyone, I'm less certain. From an ethical perspective, it's difficult for me to say what level of luxury people "ought" to have, because I personally can live with very little without my quality of life being affected. But necessity and luxury are temporally relative, so maybe the answer is "as much as civilisation is capable of providing." My fear is the Caves of Steel future, where most people live reasonably, but those who are unnecessary (or unwilling to work) are relegated to a "barracks" where the basic necessities are provided, but so meagre as to make life severely unpleasant.I think we ought to live in a society where anyone can have the basic comforts of life: shelter, food, healthcare
I completely agree. Though I wouldn't use the word "comforts." I also definitely think our civilisation is capable of supporting it, and what little research has been done suggests providing it will not be detrimental to industriousness.Everything beyond that is gravy and it's up to us as individuals to decide how much gravy we pursue.
Star Trek is probably my favorite socialist utopia. It's essentially what you're describing. On Earth, everyone is provided the basic living requirements. People work to find meaning or to earn luxuries like iPods and Holodeck Privileges, not to avoid starvation.
–
thenewgreen · 1685 days ago · link ·
I would never suggest that anyone ought to live any specific way or at any specific "level" of comfort. As I said, there are many people that wouldn't like my quality of life for any number of reasons. I think beyond the basics, it's not governments duty to supply people with quality of life. However, the building blocks needed to provide such upward mobility: health, education and time need to be universally accessible. Here's hoping for Star Trek.
thenewgreen · 1685 days ago · link ·
This comment has been deleted.