Employers deprive workers of a life

[cynic]

Who said anything about starving?
I just agreed with your theory that people should work harder to increase their quality of life.

But you don’t agree with a starting wage that will guarantee a person can eat, and sleep in a bed (of all things!). That says a lot.

No, people can be mediocre if they choose to be. But I don’t want to contribute to a system that rewards mediocrity and punishes success.

Then make sure not to contribute to charity either. Since only the poor receive it, that could be doing the same thing.

I did mention a sliding scale when I pointed out that welfare programs based on wage supplementation would punish success without some sort of sliding scale.

It was part of a larger criticism of your “top-up” welfare idea- which would inevitably have to grow to cover people who earn more and more money.

How do their wages stay the same, exactly? When they get a pay raise, they don’t get a pay raise?

You mentioned it but you can’t understand it?

For every dollar they get as a raise, a dollar comes off the supplement. (Perhaps there would be some leeway given initially, eg. someone can earn up to $40 more without any reduction)

Before you jump all over this, YES there are problems with that. Since a worker isn’t gaining anything financially from small raises, you could say that it’s a disincentive to work harder. But how many people who work are happy existing near the breadline? Those small raises put them in line to be promoted, put in a position where they won’t need any aid at all.

What’s your alternative anyway, what help does a single mother with no family to rely on ‘get’ in your ideal?

If you recall, one of my major points was that government programs inevitably grow and multiply in order to address their inherent faults.

Sliding scales are just one example of that.

um, how hard is it to apply a sliding scale?

Yes, those are exactly the kinds of circumstances that people should want to move forward from.

What was your point, again?

You mean the kind they can’t move forward from. Where they can’t apply for new positions because they havn’t washed in a month. Where they can’t absorb new information because they havn’t eaten enough for their brains to work. Yeah great (de)motivators.

No, I don’t. And neither do any conservatives I know.

If your defination of conservative=libertarian, then I guess it can’t be.

It’s a idea that’s appeared in *National Review *a couple times.

The major point is that the recipients have to work, or they get no help at all. Not quite survival of the fittest thoug, so it probably doesn’t appeal to your ilk.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If your defination of conservative=libertarian, then I guess it can’t be.

It’s a idea that’s appeared in *National Review *a couple times.

The major point is that the recipients have to work, or they get no help at all. Not quite survival of the fittest thoug, so it probably doesn’t appeal to your ilk.

Is your idea similar to Friedman’s negative income tax? Milton Friedman was pretty much a libertarian.

 

[cynic]

You mean the kind they can’t move forward from. Where they can’t apply for new positions because they havn’t washed in a month. Where they can’t absorb new information because they havn’t…

That should read “haven’t”. It was late…

 

[jmcrae]

Well heck lets raise the MW to 15 an hour? Well if that is good lets meake it 20 and EVERYBODY can be happy, from the guy flipping burgers to the guys at the car wash.

Cynic- do you feel like people should be ENTITLED to be paid a livable wage?

We had a bunch of fast food joints go out of business here recently, because they wouldn’t pay the employees enough for them to pay rent in the apartments close by to here. They got together and figured as long as all of them kept wages low, nobody would complain.

The employees all went to school and became secretaries for a local oil company.

So, now we have a whole lot of very well-typed reports to read, but no place to go for lunch.

I think those guys forgot that the only reason most people go to work is in order to have money to pay the rent and buy groceries and stuff.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t know much, but nobody EVER got rich in a union. They serve their purpose I guess, but I was never one to tie my destiny to the collective. In a union I’ll have job security and a decent wage, but I can’t do any better for myself then what the contract says my job is worth, no matter how hard I work. I can be at work everyday, and meet my quota of widgets, not gonna matter if I made 20 more the ole Fred, we’re both gonna be paid the same wage, or whatever is in the contract allows.

It is not a bad system for some, but for those ambitious to go to the next level, first things he’s gotta do is get out of the union, and find someplace that *will *let him dominate.

In a union, you can acquire more wealth than 90% of the population of the US if you are prudent and make wise decisions. I am a member of a union, and while I will agree that unions do protect the lazy on many ocaisions, one can also do quite well in a union.

 

[BamaRider]

Let me undertand this, your employer paid you well, your food on duty, subsidized any further education, gave you access to a retirement plan, gave you 6 weeks vacation - all care of the taxpayer - and all you had to do was keep fit, drive carefully and stay off drugs. After all that you can smugly dismiss other workers as lazy for wanting a wage they can barely survive on.

Are you suggesting the kid flipping burgers have the same benefits and pay, many of us working 10 years in a job has?

This is where I disagree, you might not have much as a burger flipper, but you can always get better. When I was growing up, we called it starting out. But nowdays, kids walk in a job, and expect to the same pay and benefits as those in the workforce for many years, its called- a sense of “entitlement,” and your assesment of the need of govt to top people’s salary off for “livable wage” is a prime example of that line of thinking.

 

[Julianna]

Both my husband and I are truly blessed to work for Uncle Sam. I wish I hadn’t spend 20 yrs toiling in the private sector getting screamed at for $4.00 an hour.
From the moment I raised my right hand…I get all major holidays off. I start my retirement going with the first check along with 4 hrs. a pp for sick leave and 6 hrs. a pay period for annual leave. I have the option of contributing to TSP with a match from Uncle Sam. I have access to several health care plans. (My DH carries the healthcare). My DH is under the CSRS system…I am under FERS. CSRS is the best.

My son who is HFA would not have received the diagnosis and care if we did not have the healthcare when he was young. Now that he is in college…he too is going to work for Uncle Sam as soon as he gets his engineering degree. It is a win-win. There isn’t anywhere else to work these days. When my son was in high school he worked many odd jobs with no benefits…but each check paid for another course in college. Of course we didn’t qualify for FASFA and the Autism Society wasn’t granting any scholarships. He has interned for the past few summers with various engineering depts under Uncle Sam. He has squirreled those checks away to finish his last 2 years.

I really don’t know what I was thinking back in the day working for people who did not appreciate an honest days work. I guess God was teaching me to be grateful. I am…every time I show my badge at the gate…I thank God for my job.

DH retires in 3 short years with full CSRS and TSP he has been squirreling away for years.

If any young person lives near a military installation and they work in tandem with the local community colleges and universities in the area in co-op programs…please get in one…especially in the skilled worker area as the trades…plane building, boat building and facilities maint are in need of good skilled workers. If you are red state in the south and haven’t been hit with BRAC…this is the way to go.

 

[cynic]

Are you suggesting the kid flipping burgers have the same benefits and pay, many of us working 10 years in a job has?

Of course not

This is where I disagree, you might not have much as a burger flipper, but you can always get better. When I was growing up, we called it starting out. But nowdays, kids walk in a job, and expect to the same pay and benefits as those in the workforce for many years, its called- a sense of “entitlement,” and your assesment of the need of govt to top people’s salary off for “livable wage” is a prime example of that line of thinking.

No it isn’t because the benefits and pay you mention are well above the cost of living.

 

[BamaRider]

No it isn’t because the benefits and pay you mention are well above the cost of living.

Tell me again how we decide what a “livable wage” is and whose gonna be in charge of that? Reckon we need to do it like the case workers for SSI disability? You feel everyone needs to make a enough to have roof over their head and something to eat, Ok I’m with ya!

What if my defination of roof is different than the joker down the street? Whose gonna decide what my basic needs are? Will it be defined by the same people who run Social Security LOL?

And what about ME? I do ok with my pension check but I might wanna job flipping burgers to buy extra gas for my motorcycle riding, do I get a chance to have my salary “topped off?”

I’d be kinda upset if I flipped burgers for less money then the guy that hired on same day, but I guess I can go down to the my case worker, take a number, and explain my plight, and see if I can get “topped off.” For sure I need to be topped off to match my neighbor, he just bought a new riding lawn mower that does everything.

How many of y’all wanna get your salaries topped?? Raise your hands! I do! I do!

 

[thomfra]

I’d be kinda upset if I flipped burgers for less money then the guy that hired on same day

Would you really? If that guy was trying to feed his family, and you were using it for a bit of pocket money/motorcycle money? Surley you wouldn’t begrudge him (or his kids) this?

I think the idea would be that such top-ups (like any government benefits) would be means-tested. i.e. if you have a healthy pension, then you have no requirment for this extra help.

 

[DL82]

If you’re talking about pay and other benefits, then it’s fine for the guy who flips burgers to get less when he’s starting than someone who’s been doing the job for years.

If you’re talking about basic conditions, like having a decent work-life balance, job security, etc. then new people have the same rights as anyone else, regardless how long they’ve been working there.

If you are made to work ridiculous hours and can be sacked on a whim when you first start your job, then what are your chances of even getting to a more senior level.

Before we had a minimum wage here in the UK, people used to be hired at the start of some high-status jobs on “prestige pay” which meant they got a few pennies an hour, but had the chance to work their way up through the system. The problem is, people can’t live on ‘prestige pay’ which meant these jobs always went to young people from wealthy families, or people who wanted it so bad they were willing to work two full-time jobs. That’s bad enough, but when people who have neither high pay nor chance of promotion are cheated out of a basic living wage, we have a system of slavery.

The UN recognises ‘bonded labour’ as a form of de facto slavery, it’s illegal under international law. That means if you take on an enormous debt at the beginning of a job, which you can only repay by carrying on in that job, you are, in fact, a slave. America’s healthcare system does exactly that, forcing some people to carry on working, not for the money to survive, but just to avoid a cost they could never pay otherwise.

 

[Michael_David]

What about the worth of the job to the employer?

If, for one job opening, he has 100 applications (with the stated wage for starting), who will be selected? And by what criteria? The best one to do the tasks of the job… in the employers eye’s. He too has to keep costs down in order to compete.

However, if, for one job opening, he has no applications (or one’s without the skills needed for the tasks), the pay will have to go up so he can attract some proper applicants. It’s a market of supply and demand that sets the wages.

If 50% of the workers are unskilled, that is a lot of competition for the few openings that exist. Hence, the minimum wage. The skilled openings then go on supply and demand, while the ‘starter’ job’s do not.

Look at it from the employers shoes! What is the job worth to him? If you take it, that is what it is worth (for you). If you do not like it, there are 99 others waiting in line to replace you.

This is why they call it WORK.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Would you really? If that guy was trying to feed his family, and you were using it for a bit of pocket money/motorcycle money? Surley you wouldn’t begrudge him (or his kids) this?

I think the idea would be that such top-ups (like any government benefits) would be means-tested. i.e. if you have a healthy pension, then you have no requirment for this extra help.

It isn’t about begrudging anyone anything- it is simply the frustration of recognizing the idiocy of using the government to supplement unliveable wages.

On the one hand, if an employer is paying an unliveable wage simply because they are cheap or unfair, then it is wrong to use government subsidies to empower them to continue being cheap and unfair.

On the other hand, there is no getting around the fact that some types of work simply aren’t capable of providing a living wage because the product or service generated by the work is just not valued that highly by society. In this case it is wrong to use government subsidies to hide the real cost of products or services created by a company by simply passing them on to the consumer through other channels, like taxes.

And another thing…raising taxes on other business owners with bigger profit margins just adds to the problem because taxing them inevitably reduces the amount of money they will use to pay their employees- resulting in a new batch of employees earning less than a sustainable wage. This is how the cycle of low wages, gov’t subsidy, and tax increases develops.

For that matter, wealth redistribution through taxation is a very inefficient way to “top up” someone’s income. The government collects taxes, spends a portion of that money to process those taxes and pay the bureaucrats, spends more of that money to determine how to distribute it, and still more to actually distribute it. In the US, this process eats up about 40% of the tax revenue. That means that for every $100 taxed on behalf of a welfare recipient, they only recieve $60 because $40 goes to the government.

What it comes down to for most people is that the solution isn’t simply to give them more money- it is to help them learn new skills, relocate to an area with more opportunity, or renegotiate their wages with their employer.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I take it you are against Milton Friedman’s proposal of a negative income tax? Is old Milt too far to the left for you?

 

[cynic]

It isn’t about begrudging anyone anything- it is simply the frustration of recognizing the idiocy of using the government to supplement unliveable wages.

On the one hand, if an employer is paying an unliveable wage simply because they are cheap or unfair, then it is wrong to use government subsidies to empower them to continue being cheap and unfair.

On the other hand, there is no getting around the fact that some types of work simply aren’t capable of providing a living wage because the product or service generated by the work is just not valued that highly by society. In this case it is wrong to use government subsidies to hide the real cost of products or services created by a company by simply passing them on to the consumer through other channels, like taxes.

And another thing…raising taxes on other business owners with bigger profit margins just adds to the problem because taxing them inevitably reduces the amount of money they will use to pay their employees- resulting in a new batch of employees earning less than a sustainable wage. This is how the cycle of low wages, gov’t subsidy, and tax increases develops.

For that matter, wealth redistribution through taxation is a very inefficient way to “top up” someone’s income. The government collects taxes, spends a portion of that money to process those taxes and pay the bureaucrats, spends more of that money to determine how to distribute it, and still more to actually distribute it. In the US, this process eats up about 40% of the tax revenue. That means that for every $100 taxed on behalf of a welfare recipient, they only recieve $60 because $40 goes to the government.

What it comes down to for most people is that the solution isn’t simply to give them more money- it is to help them learn new skills, relocate to an area with more opportunity, or renegotiate their wages with their employer.

A few points.

*A minimum wage set around the basic cost of living deals with excessively unfair wages. Most semi-skilled workers are getting above this anyway, and would need no assistance, so we’re talking about a relatively small number of people.

*A government subsidy to wages does not need to push *up *prices form where they currently are. The cost to the goverment and employers (and all of us) through taxation is likely to be less than current welfare programmes.

*A reduction in company tax and compliance costs is preferable to pulling the rug from under the most vulnerable employees.

*It’s clear that disagree with government involvement on purely idealogical grounds - so none of this really matters for you.

 

[Oscarthecat]

*A minimum wage set around the basic cost of living deals with excessively unfair wages. Most semi-skilled workers are getting above this anyway, and would need no assistance, so we’re talking about a relatively small number of people.

*A government subsidy to wages does not need to push *up *prices form where they currently are. The cost to the goverment and employers (and all of us) through taxation is likely to be less than current welfare programmes.

First of all, I know you’ll probably just think this is splitting hairs, but you should be aware that taxes do not cost the government anything- they are a source of revenue for the government. I could go into more detail, but I think that’s pretty self-explanatory.

Second, you have not offered any concrete data supporting your premise that a program like this would cost less than any current program.

So I’ll help you out by pointing you in the right direction to get that data.

• your “top-up” program would, by definition, cost the difference between whatever the government calls the “living wage” rate and what the government dictates as the “minimum wage” rate.
• also, by definition, your “top-up” program would be available to a whole new subset of the population that is not currently eligible for full welfare benefits. This would include, but not be limited to, any worker who cannot be claimed as a dependent who is currently working for less than the government’s arbitrary definition of a “living wage rate.” So…that means that it would include pretty much anyone over the age of 18 making minimum wage.

Incidentally, a recent study by ACORN, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought in the U.S., states that the living wage in the US should be somewhere between $15-18 dollars/hour, or 31,200-37,440 annually.
(source:acorn.org/fileadmin/International/Canada/Reports/Federal_Peoples_Platform_-_FINAL.pdf)

Now, consider that the US Census Bureau’s sliding poverty scale defines a family of 4 earning less than $21,100 annually as “poor,” and are therefore already eligible for welfare benefits. (census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html)

And also consider that about 15% of families earn between $21k and $35 annually
(factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00)

then that means that you’ll be “topping up” the income of at least 15% of the US population, most of whom are not currently eligible for welfare benefits.

So, I think that you might want to reconsider your claim on this.

*A reduction in company tax and compliance costs is preferable to pulling the rug from under the most vulnerable employees.

Didn’t you mean “an increase in company tax and compliance costs…”

because that’s how this kind of things gets paid for…

incidentally, business tax increases are often paid for by cutting low-wage workers from the payroll

or did you mean something different by “pulling the rug from under the most vulnerable employees”

 

[Just_wondering]

Tell that to people making ‘widgets’ for 16 hours a day in South East Asia. Their wages are definately not scaled to productivity. It’s supply and demand, no matter how hard working these people are, they earn very little, even in their own currency, because the labour is easy to find. And they live in dorms and have to cook food collectively just to survive.

I know this was a few pages back, but I just have to chime in on the Asian widget-maker comment! I am NOT in favour of government intervention, and NOT in favour of unions. Sure, unions have done a lot for workers, but these days they hold people back more than they raise them up. Let me tell you my Asian widget-maker boyfriend’s story, and why I think it’s better not to have the government or unions getting involved.

My boyfriend started out in the Philippines, making widgets. He lived with his parents, one of many siblings living at home and contributing to the household income. Only so much money you can make making widgets, even if you’re working 16 hours a day. That’s true. So he realizes pretty quickly that there’s no way he can go on at his wage. What does he do? He buys an old scrap car with his wages one month, and the family eats a little less that month. They borrow a little money to make ends meet. He spends Sundays, his only day off, fixing the car after church. After a few weeks, the car is drivable, and he begins driving it as a private taxi. No government intervention to stop him. No taxi union complaining that he’s not paying dues.

Driving a taxi, he makes a little bit more per month. He’s spending 16 hour days working for himself, now. He can afford to buy a second car, fix it up on Sundays, and hire a driver. Eventually he has three cars and two employees. Unfortunately, competition is increasing and the profits are going down. Does he apply for government protection? No. Does he form a union with other taxi companies to prevent new drivers from starting taxi companies? No. He moves somewhere where he can make more profit.

That’s when my boyfriend applied for a job in another country - Korea. Suddenly the government gets involved - he has to pay money to apply for the visa. He needs to take a language course before he’s eligible for a visa. His new employer at the widget factory sends him a plane ticket, and he comes over here. He works 16 hour days, six days a week. Unlike the local employees, he’s locked into his contract. The government will deport him if he looks for another job. The government will deport him if he gets fired. Suddenly, the company has the freedom to ask him to work seven days a week, because of the government intervention. Sure, the government protects workers, too. Workers are guaranteed pension and health insurance - but if your company doesn’t provide it, how many widget makers can afford a lawyer? And besides, the company will fire you, and you’re immediately deported so you don’t have the chance to fight for wrongful dismissal and unpaid benefits. Oh, yeah. And foreign workers aren’t allowed to unionize.

Yeah. So government intervention isn’t really too supportive of workers - after all, is it the workers or the employers who contribute to campaigns? I’m not so convinced that other governments do better, or that locals are treated any more reasonably.

So my boyfriend leaves Korea. Is he forced back into his widget-making job at home? No, he still has the freedom to go elsewhere. He’s using what little money he saved here to open a butcher shop at home. Two months’ rent and some inventory is not too unaffordable. He’ll get the business set up and hire a few family members to run it. He’s applying for jobs in other countries, to try his hand again at making higher wages again.

I know that people can feel stuck in dead end jobs, but being willing to move across the country or the world for a job is the solution to that. Calling in the government to interfere is not.

 

[cynic]

First of all, I know you’ll probably just think this is splitting hairs, but you should be aware that taxes do not cost the government anything- they are a source of revenue for the government. I could go into more detail, but I think that’s pretty self-explanatory.

The cost to the goverment is in revenue, the cost to employers, and taxpayers, is through taxation. Anyone would have read it like that.

This is just your attempt to make me look silly…

Second, you have not offered any concrete data supporting your premise that a program like this would cost less than any current program.

So I’ll help you out by pointing you in the right direction to get that data.

• your “top-up” program would, by definition, cost the difference between whatever the government calls the “living wage” rate and what the government dictates as the “minimum wage” rate.
• also, by definition, your “top-up” program would be available to a whole new subset of the population that is not currently eligible for full welfare benefits. This would include, but not be limited to, any worker who cannot be claimed as a dependent who is currently working for less than the government’s arbitrary definition of a “living wage rate.” So…that means that it would include pretty much anyone over the age of 18 making minimum wage.

The living wage would be the minimum wage set at the basic cost of living for one person. It is not the “living comfortably wage” and would be nowhere near $15-18 an hour (more like 8-10)

Incidentally, a recent study by ACORN, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought in the U.S., states that the living wage in the US should be somewhere between $15-18 dollars/hour, or 31,200-37,440 annually.
(source:acorn.org/fileadmin/International/Canada/Reports/Federal_Peoples_Platform_-_FINAL.pdf)

Now, consider that the US Census Bureau’s sliding poverty scale defines a family of 4 earning less than $21,100 annually as “poor,” and are therefore already eligible for welfare benefits. (census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html)

And also consider that about 15% of families earn between $21k and $35 annually
(factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00)

then that means that you’ll be “topping up” the income of at least 15% of the US population, most of whom are not currently eligible for welfare benefits.

So, I think that you might want to reconsider your claim on this.

What some organization considers poor means nohting to me. The “top up” would occur only if there are dependants ie for single mothers, or for those supporting a sick relative. This is a substitute for welfare, not an additional programme

For a normal family, both parents can work, so the single earner doesn’t automatically get access to it.

Didn’t you mean “an increase in company tax and compliance costs…”

because that’s how this kind of things gets paid for…

Only if it costs more.

I assume you’re quite happy with paying for wars that will potentially go on for decades… yeah keeping taxes high for that is okay.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The cost to the goverment is in revenue, the cost to employers, and taxpayers, is through taxation. Anyone would have read it like that.

This is just your attempt to make me look silly…

I promise not to attempt to make you look silly…

The living wage would be the minimum wage set at the basic cost of living for one person. It is not the “living comfortably wage” and would be nowhere near $15-18 an hour (more like 8-10)

Is that your opinion, or are you citing data from a reputable source?

That $15-18 estimate was based on the data provided by a very influential left-wing special interest group.

I may disagree with everything that group stands for, but since they’re the ones pushing for living wage laws in D.C., chances are good that any living wage legislation passed would closely approximate their recommendations.

What some organization considers poor means nohting to me. The “top up” would occur only if there are dependants ie for single mothers, or for those supporting a sick relative. This is a substitute for welfare, not an additional programme

For a normal family, both parents can work, so the single earner doesn’t automatically get access to it.

Did you just refer to the US CENSUS BUREAU as “some organization”???

Really?

Now you’ve gone and made me break my promise to not make you look “silly.”

I think you should reconsider whether it is worth at least considering the US CENSUS BUREAU’S definition of the poverty level in a discussion involving the poverty level in the US?

Only if it costs more.

Well, lets see- since, as I’ve demonstrated with actual data and not simple conjecture, millions of people would be added to the welfare rolls via your “top-up” system, without reducing or removing benefits for those who are not currently working.

Yep, that would appear to be consistent with a net increase in people receiving benefits.

I assume you’re quite happy wit paying for wars that will potentially go on for decades though…, yeah keeping taxes for that is okay.

Just a tip, and I say this with all sincerity-

Don’t resort to red herring and ad hominem attacks. We clearly haven’t been discussing the use of taxes to wage wars- most people would realize pretty quickly that you’re just throwing random topics at me because you can’t defend your position on its own merits.

If you’re not able to defend your position on its own merits, that’s fine- there is no shame in that if you’re graceful about it.
Maybe say “well, I may not be able to identify it, but something about your position just doesn’t sit right with me. I need to give this some more thought.”

 

[LB5]

I haven’t read through the entire thread, and this has nothing to do with the most recent posts, but I have to jump in with my opinion…I think it is a shame how many corporate employers and large law firms and things of that nature require sometimes 10, 12 hour workdays, even more than that. On the other hand, I sometimes feel like the people who complain about THOSE types of jobs are in it for the wrong reasons…money. I mean, everyone needs money to survive, but many of the jobs that require those long hours, you barely even have time to spend it!

I wish that more people worked jobs they truly LOVE. My job, I love it. I can’t imagine doing anything else. I work for the local government, I’d prefer not to say exactly what, but it is involved with the court system. I LOVE IT. The pay stinks, but it is enough to pay my bills with and have a little bit left over for treats and extras. But I’d rather have a lower paying job and love going to work every day than get paid three times as much, and hate it. I help people and I help the community. Every day, I meet with new people and talk to new people. I see tragedy and I see triumph. I take home stories that would break your heart, and others that will make you split your side laughing. The job has emotional highs and lows and I have cried at work, but getting upset over things, to me it just shows that I care about what I do. I could not imagine working a job and wasting so many hours of my life doing something I loathed, or even something I just went through the motions for everyday. I don’t, not even a little bit, feel like my job deprives me of a life. My job IS my life. I mean, not literally, I do get out and have fun with friends and family, but my job makes me happy and I look forward to going to work every day. Even on its worst day, it is not that bad.

I encourage everyone to do something they LOVE for a living. If it means a pay cut, do it anyway. What you lose in money you will make up for in happiness and fulfillment!!