Hurlshort

But there is actually a pretty big shortage in teaching across the board, even in humanities. Half of new teachers quit in the first 5 years. It's not for everyone. Although I agree with you on the degree aspect. We should be focusing on specialized education at an earlier age, and there shouldn't be a stigma around jobs like plumbing and electrical work, given they can pay exceptionally well.

When it comes to teaching, a letter from a former student after they've graduated is far more rewarding than any economic impact. Well, unless it is a death threat.

Glad he is doing better. My dog chewed the small gate we had on our side yard and managed to escape, so now he is stuck in the dog run during the day. This weekend I need to devise a stronger gate to keep him in.

It relies on people reporting salaries, so it probably just doesn't have enough data to deal with outliers. It does have the averages over $10 in Canada, so that's something.

That is a good point, we do tend to focus on starting salaries. Here is what glass door shows: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/McDonald-s-Salaries-E432.htm It also should be noted that McDonalds only runs 10% of their restaurants, and the rest are franchises, which can have different policies on salary.

...Why exactly? I mean, seriously, who benefits from having a minimum wage so low, most people on it have to apply for various welfare programs to cover basic necessities? Why is it fair that people indirectly have to pay for services and goods they never use nor want through taxes, because the reason said services and goods are available at such low prices is that the employer is paying minimum wage to its workers? Gfted already linked a good article on some of the issues, but I'd add that all employers are different. It is pretty easy for me to tune out the big chains when they complain about minimum wage. McDonalds is not going to go under because it pays the fry cook a few bucks more. They should trim the fat at the top, and given they are a consumer driven business, the consumers should be driving for that. But small businesses don't have the same profit margin. The difference of a few bucks and hour may drop them into the red. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

That is a statement of the obvious. The goal isn't to make everyone rich, it is make sure people who have jobs have a decent quality of life.

Yeah, I gave Fallout 4 another go this weekend, but then I tried to talk to someone about my son and the responses I thought I was choosing all came out terribly. It made me dislike the character, which made me stop playing.

I know Bogut is struggling a bit health wise, but I'm surprised he didn't see more time in that game, since he basically shut them down in the 1st quarter.

The idea is to grow wealth across the board. Or at the very least, keep up with inflation. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/ The rich getting richer is not a problem unless the everyone else is getting poorer.

I'm not sure those are the only solutions. I'm pretty sure that raising the minimum wage, while plenty problematic in itself, is a heck of a lot better than either of those options.

That article is great, and I tend to agree with quite a bit that is being said. On the positive, the idea that 2 out of 3 people have higher incomes than their parents, and 1 out of 3 are upwardly mobile, seems like very good news. The biggest red flag I see is the uneven growth, where the top is growing significantly faster than the bottom. It's a bad trend.

My son left a massive poop in the toilet today. It is as long as his leg and a bit wider. It will not flush. I am afraid.

Have you googled Bay Area home prices? While I'm sure bad financial planning and jonesian endeavors are an issue for many, it doesn't change the fact the Bay Area is not affordable.

Nice deflection. You avoided the 'keeping up with the jones' part of my quote as well as your own financial problems. Well you ignored the fact that I work in Cupertino and don't live in Gilroy, so I guess we are even? I don't really know what your hang up is here, you seem very interested in my financials. I guess I opened myself up to it by using myself as an example, so there is that. I mean, congrats on making me feel bad about my money situation. edit: Although it's odd to call it a deflection when I was basically restating my initial argument, which is that single family homes are too expensive in the Bay Area for the majority of single families.

Suburbs, by their nature, should be an affordable option for the middle class. They are not in the Bay Area.

Parents + 2 kids doesn't mean you need a 4bd+ house. Just because you have two cars doesn't mean you need a two car garage. You can't park your car in the driveway? Also expecting to live in a million dollar suburb added to your check list? If you're going to have that sort of search criteria with a list of things that are outside your means, then of course you won't be able to afford to buy a house with those conditions. It's why people usually buy houses further out to live within their means.

So, are we debating the literal translation of a "self-made man"? I kind of assumed it was a given that it is a figure of speech. My bad.

I'm wrestling with this sentence a bit. Can you clarify?

You had me until the self-made man part. I do believe it is possible to rise up from the bottom in our society, probably more so now than most of human history. Hard work and dedication can get you far today. But there is a point where you have to ask at what cost? I have a buddy I grew up with that has managed to build a business and find a good deal of financial success. He has a big house, fancy cars, etc. I worked with him for a short while after college. He worked tirelessly building his business. I admire him, but I wouldn't change places. He is also on his second marriage and had his first kid a decade after mine. The point is, you can build yourself up, but not everyone should have to. The country needs regular workers as well, and their salaries should be able to keep pace with the cost of living.

Is there a source on this? I'd like to read it. You know, I am clearly getting my stories about billionaires and welfare mixed up. I was originally reading about Walmart employees and then I ended up on the Koch Brothers (who I'm not even clear on who they employ.) Here is the Walmart stuff. http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#253f13957cd8 Counterpoint: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/04/14/phantastical-nonsense-about-walmart-the-waltons-and-7-8-billion-in-tax-breaks/#199b69a45687

He's getting the racist label for the Mexico and Muslim stuff, so those pictures aren't really relevant. At least he's had the sexist label pretty consistently over the last 30 years.

Hah, yeah, my bad.

So what about the Koch brothers? Their wealth grew by $33 million in the last 3 years, but more than half of their employees rely on welfare to get by. How is that raising all ships?

I work in Cupertino. It is also important to keep in mind that the houses that are selling for under a million are the easiest for investors to gobble up, because they can go in with a cash offer. I used to live in Gilroy, but the commute was killing me. http://www.trulia.com/CA/Cupertino/ Honestly this isn't like some breaking news story. The Bay Area is insane. http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/san-francisco-housing-prices/