Paying workers more is better for everyone

[Stark]

You can laugh at silly attitudes like 'if I don't spend my money its wasted', but I believe people learn those habits very early in life. Just like with that idea of the merit of savings, I'm pretty sure many people in poor families are trained by their parents as much as their circumstances that savings are futile/investment is bad/growth is pretend/etc.

People's attitudes toward money (and even things) is often built on a very simple, tangible kind of 'value'. Explaining to people at work the advantages of (say) leasing a car over buying a car really shows how for many people, the idea of 'owning' 'things' is much more important than little things like increasing wealth over time or reducing outlays or whatever FINANCIAL WIZARDRY.

[LaCroix]

In many cases raising the salary of a US employee will not significantly increase their net income and may in fact reduce it.
*snip img*
Assuming of course they are being a good socialist and collecting every possible government benefit.

So you are saying it is better to pay people less and let the state come up with the difference - which everyone will have to pay for via their taxes and federal debt - so that a few can maximize their income (and try their hardest to evade as much tax as possible)?

Gee - what a sound plan. Didn't that plan bring us to where we are now?

[Aaron MkII]

You can laugh at silly attitudes like 'if I don't spend my money its wasted', but I believe people learn those habits very early in life. Just like with that idea of the merit of savings, I'm pretty sure many people in poor families are trained by their parents as much as their circumstances that savings are futile/investment is bad/growth is pretend/etc.

People's attitudes toward money (and even things) is often built on a very simple, tangible kind of 'value'. Explaining to people at work the advantages of (say) leasing a car over buying a car really shows how for many people, the idea of 'owning' 'things' is much more important than little things like increasing wealth over time or reducing outlays or whatever FINANCIAL WIZARDRY.

Having been poor after I was first married and then struggling after the military was done with me, it's very easy to spend it immediately, especially if you get paid once a month like I do. You buy food that has to last a month, etc.

We space it out now by using envelopes but really, financial counseling should be mandatory if your in the situation or they need to space out the paydays.

[Stark]

To be honest I think things like this should be taught in the education system, and I think they aren't because parents don't appreciate how important it is. People readily pass on their bad habits to their children, after all.

[Aaron MkII]

Yes, it should. I vaguely recall a "business" class in HS but IIRC it was oriented more towards business finances and not personal stuff.

[Lonestar]

Yes, it should. I vaguely recall a "business" class in HS but IIRC it was oriented more towards business finances and not personal stuff.

If only there was some class that taught the economics of home life.


We could call it "Home Economics".



All joking aside, the problem is that there's the perception the Home Ec is a "Mickey Mouse" class and won't help you get into college, so who the fuck is going to take it?

EDIT: I don't know how they do things in the CF, but in the US Military they actually send you off for a week for personal financial education and planning when you get to your first duty station. It turns out the military doesn't want people with money troubles handling sensitive equipment and material.

[Flagg]

I took home economics. It was 49% cooking, 50% sewing, and like a week or 2 of actual classes on budget management.

[Lonestar]

I took home economics. It was 49% cooking, 50% sewing, and like a week or 2 of actual classes on budget management.

Spunds like you went to a shitty school system.

That said, I'm not too sure how long you think is needed for the basics of personal finance to be taught. I suspect that it doesn't require a semester, or even a quarter, of of study in order to have some basic concepts taught you.

Whether they want to drink once they've been led to water is up to them. Maybe they'll go and fuck around due to a lifetime of habits learned by parents. But if you've been given this information and you choose to make Bad Decisions anyway, well, at a certain point it's you're own fault.

[Stark]

It doesn't require a semester to learn algebra either, but here we are. Developing education to meet goals and not just enable you to be smug when people fail anyway? Madness, I know.

[Lonestar]

It doesn't require a semester to learn algebra either, but here we are. Developing education to meet goals and not just enable you to be smug when people fail anyway? Madness, I know.

I'd wager that's because algebra is a little bit more nuanced than "set aside even a little money each pay check, always try to make sure you have x amount of cash in the bank where x represents 6 months living expensives. Also, don't take out a car loan for more than 5% APR."

Seriously, the military will kick your ass out for screwing up personal financials after you've been instructed in it. This is because there's a belief that if you're old enough to pick up a gun and shoot(16 in the US) you're old enough to remember to manage your money after you've been presented with information and tested on it.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Is it better to determine who's at fault enough that we can shun them or is it better to try to fix the problem?

[Lonestar]

Is it better to determine who's at fault enough that we can shun them or is it better to try to fix the problem?

A astute reader would have noted that I initially said it was a problem that kids weren't taking existing classes offered that covered personal finances. Flagg came in and said "but but my Home Ec was just cooking and only a week or two of personal finance!". Forgetting the questionable implication that you need a semester's worth of personal finance, it neatly ignores the problem that no one is taking the fucking class to begin with.

[Stark]

I'd wager that's because algebra is a little bit more nuanced than "set aside even a little money each pay check, always try to make sure you have x amount of cash in the bank where x represents 6 months living expensives. Also, don't take out a car loan for more than 5% APR."

The best 'simple explanations' include terms they don't explain. Stupid kids making bad decisions ho ho ho!

No more financial advice Lonez, I think I may die laughing.

[Esquire]

Since we're trading anecdotes, my high school had an actual Personal Finance class, focused on budgets, cars, insurance, etc. Better, passing it was a requirement for graduation. Sure, the class was stupidly large and badly taught, but the information was there for anybody willing to put forward a little effort.

I've no idea how widespread this was, though - I grew up in Missouri, specifically St. Louis. Anybody else have a similar experience?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

A astute reader would have noted that I initially said it was a problem that kids weren't taking existing classes offered that covered personal finances. Flagg came in and said "but but my Home Ec was just cooking and only a week or two of personal finance!". Forgetting the questionable implication that you need a semester's worth of personal finance, it neatly ignores the problem that no one is taking the fucking class to begin with.

Yes, but when your conclusion is "at a certain point it's their fault, I mean it's all right there", that just seems like a way to give up while being smug about it. If people are consistently not stepping up to the plate, blaming them isn't going to solve anything no matter how much they could certainly improve their own situation. If the courses aren't being taken, consider making them mandatory; if they're not teaching people even when taken, fix them so they do. In this case, we might want to do both

If people are being idiots to the detriment of all, you can yell at them for being idiots, or you can try to make the system idiot-proof enough that the problem goes away. Even if the second choice is a difficult one, I figure it's a lot better than the former.

[Stark]

Who cares? Its a sideline to the ideas regarding people's conceptions on the 'value' of money (or even more fundamentally the role of money). I don't want to get too advanced, but the differing perceptions here might explain the different attitudes shown between the ultra mega rich (and smug fuckwits) and the day-to-day poor towards things like worker negotiations, salaries, etc.

JUST MAYBE.

Also 'the information is there for those who make the effort' is fucking amazing.

[Lonestar]

Yes, but when your conclusion is "at a certain point it's their fault, I mean it's all right there", that just seems like a way to give up while being smug about it. If people are consistently not stepping up to the plate, blaming them isn't going to solve anything no matter how much they could certainly improve their own situation. If the courses aren't being taken, consider making them mandatory; if they're not teaching people even when taken, fix them so they do. In this case, we might want to do both

Hey, if you're saying "make them take it", then fine. You just need to be prepared for the small practical problem of parents and school systems who have spent the past 60 years being indoctrinated that High School is for college, because without college you're a failure, and "this doesn't prepare them for college"(or more specifically, college applications).

But if kids aren't even taking existing courses, then I think we're putting the cart before the horse when talking about reforming them.

[Lonestar]

Also 'the information is there for those who make the effort' is fucking amazing.

You can lead a horse to water dude, and sometimes it won't drink it. The problem is that kids aren't being led to water to begin with. We have no idea how effective this is because kids aren't taking existing courses, and people in this thread are shrugging their shoulders and going "whelp let's clear out another semesters worth of classes without trying the exisiting tools fist. What are we gonna dump this time? Kids don't need drivers Ed"

[Darth Wong]

You can laugh at silly attitudes like 'if I don't spend my money its wasted', but I believe people learn those habits very early in life. Just like with that idea of the merit of savings, I'm pretty sure many people in poor families are trained by their parents as much as their circumstances that savings are futile/investment is bad/growth is pretend/etc.

People's attitudes toward money (and even things) is often built on a very simple, tangible kind of 'value'. Explaining to people at work the advantages of (say) leasing a car over buying a car really shows how for many people, the idea of 'owning' 'things' is much more important than little things like increasing wealth over time or reducing outlays or whatever FINANCIAL WIZARDRY.

Having been poor after I was first married and then struggling after the military was done with me, it's very easy to spend it immediately, especially if you get paid once a month like I do. You buy food that has to last a month, etc.

We space it out now by using envelopes but really, financial counseling should be mandatory if your in the situation or they need to space out the paydays.

Envelopes? As in envelopes full of cash? Is there some reason you can't use modern financial instruments such as credit cards or multiple bank accounts (one chequing, one savings) to do the same thing?

[Darth Wong]

Regarding the "financial education" idea, I think there should actually be mandatory courses covering both personal economics and national economics. It's absurd that so many people vote based on how they think a political candidate can handle the economy, yet the average person knows almost nothing about how economies work.

Of course, the practical problem with such an idea is that people would go apeshit trying to tailor the curriculum to their personal political allegiances.

[Losonti Tokash]

I use electronic envelopes devoted to certain types of expenditures to help me manage my spending, that might be what Aaron means.

[xthetenth]

Envelopes? As in envelopes full of cash? Is there some reason you can't use modern financial instruments such as credit cards or multiple bank accounts (one chequing, one savings) to do the same thing?

I find it much easier to spend money with a credit card because it's just numbers unless I make myself think about the actual math, while using cash makes me at least implicitly do the math just by pulling out two of my five twenties or something of the sort, so I can see some definite value to using cash.

[Stark]

You can lead a horse to water dude, and sometimes it won't drink it.

As much as I enjoy the hillbilly approach to education, those attitudes have probably been formed by the time highschool rolls around, and blaming (or punishing) people in some kind of smug way instead of working to better the situation is not what I'd call ideal.

The problem is that kids aren't being led to water to begin with. We have no idea how effective this is because kids aren't taking existing courses, and people in this thread are shrugging their shoulders and going "whelp let's clear out another semesters worth of classes without trying the exisiting tools fist. What are we gonna dump this time? Kids don't need drivers Ed"

Can you show me where people have said this?

Regardless, changing attitudes takes a generation or more. Those who are capable of caring about other people would probably want to see steps taken that might not have any immediate effect at all. I simply don't think the current generation of parents, who are pretty financially uninformed as a group, value such steps at all, and thus there is no pressure for anyone to take them.

[Lagmonster]

As an interest point, my sisters was given a course on home finances and personal finance management...through the Catholic church. Seriously. When she got married to a Catholic, she and her fiance had to take a preperatory course of some sort at the church before they could get married. Part of this process included not just discussions on conflict resolution and spirituality, but also a visit from some financial advisor or other who was a part of the parish and who had volunteered to teach the soon-to-be newlyweds (in a class of about fifteen couples) the basics of managing your money responsibly as a household.

The Catholic church: Weak on science, great at financial management.

[Aaron MkII]

You can laugh at silly attitudes like 'if I don't spend my money its wasted', but I believe people learn those habits very early in life. Just like with that idea of the merit of savings, I'm pretty sure many people in poor families are trained by their parents as much as their circumstances that savings are futile/investment is bad/growth is pretend/etc.

People's attitudes toward money (and even things) is often built on a very simple, tangible kind of 'value'. Explaining to people at work the advantages of (say) leasing a car over buying a car really shows how for many people, the idea of 'owning' 'things' is much more important than little things like increasing wealth over time or reducing outlays or whatever FINANCIAL WIZARDRY.

Having been poor after I was first married and then struggling after the military was done with me, it's very easy to spend it immediately, especially if you get paid once a month like I do. You buy food that has to last a month, etc.

We space it out now by using envelopes but really, financial counseling should be mandatory if your in the situation or they need to space out the paydays.

Envelopes? As in envelopes full of cash? Is there some reason you can't use modern financial instruments such as credit cards or multiple bank accounts (one chequing, one savings) to do the same thing?

Yes, envelopes full of cash. Seems to work fine, mind you we're far better off now.

So groceries, gas money, timmies, and other essentials get an envelope and money that isn't budgeted for anything stays in savings.