Couplets on the Conservative

Published on February 3, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

The conservative in his white shirt, tie and pinstripes

frowns on the unruly laborer who spitefully strikes.

Then he sniffs the rose in his lapel,

waiting for messages on his Dell,

to tell him a so-called living wage

is but the lazy’s jealous rage.

Comments (Page 2)

Gene Nash

on Feb 04, 2006

Darn. I thought it said "coupling" Conservatives.

I was hoping to catch the Ann Coulter/Laura Ingraham bootlegs.

garsgolfer

on Feb 04, 2006

Annoying realities of folks that lack initiative and talent, yet want more.

Cutting labour costs and teamwork.

Means get rid of the dead wood, not the talented which is measured by those signing checks, not those with their hands out asking for bigger checks.

he was personally making $137,000 / year.

Means his contribution to the P&L had greater value then yours....read above!

Rightwinger

on Feb 04, 2006

I work in the education field making less than most people make at fast food joints.

---Ziggystyles

I'm sorry, but I worked fast food for many, many years as side jobs and such. The most I ever made was $7.50 an hour, and that was when I was managing a DQ.
Before that, the most I ever made was $5.60 an hour, and that after over 3 years at one particular restaurant.

You seriously mean to tell us that teachers overall make less than $6.00 an hour?

Texas Wahine

on Feb 04, 2006

I'm following you around again.

Starting salary for teachers is usually around 30 grand (sometimes much higher). An hourly wage earner would have a difficult time pulling down 30 grand, even if he made a really good wage because there is usually A LOT of pressure to avoid overtime.

It comes down to the difference between a job and a career, imo. When one has a salaried career, one typically earns substantially more than the hourly worker and usually has better benefits as well. Standard of living his higher. However, with a salary career, one works far more hours...and when you divide that by income, it might not seem so impressive.

Before my husband joined the Army we were both in school and both working hourly wage jobs. We both made somewhat more than minimum wage (and I earned commission, which I totally kick ass at, haha), but we still earned less than we do now. We had set hours (although in my job I usually ended up working through lunch and far past closing as I was the manager and sole employee (I managed myself, haha)) and essentially no benefits.

I don't bring in any income now (although I do away with a lot of his, haha), but our standard of living is GREATLY increased due to excellent benefits, decent salary, and promotions and annual raises.

My husband starts work before the sun comes up. Some days he's home by 4 or 5 pm, some days it's 7 or 8. Sometimes he works 24 hours straight (like this Sunday when he has CQ duty). Sometimes he works for weeks at a time (like PLDC a few months ago). Sometimes he works for months at a time (2 months in California for NTC), and sometimes he's gone and "working" for an entire year (deployment).

When he had an hourly wage job, it was uncommon for him to work longer than 8 hours straight, and it he was not allowed to go more than an hour or two over 40 hours. He didn't have to come in to work unexpectedly. He wasn't gone for weeks at a time. We also couldn't afford the comfy lifestyle we have now.

Salary v. Hourly. Trade off, I suppose.

I wrote an article along these line a while back.

Steven: My apologies for going kina off-topic.

Rightwinger

on Feb 04, 2006

Salary v. Hourly. Trade off, I suppose.

---Tex W.

I know what you mean; my ex used to manage a Wendy's, and made somewhere over $26,000/year, not bad for the time. BUT, she often worked 50-60 hours a week, cutting into the overall "hourly" wage. She made about as much on the "hourly" level as her supervisors, who made considerably less than she did on the whole.
However, they worked less than 40 a week, which STILL left her making quite a bit more than they did as hourlies.

If you get me....

latour999

on Feb 05, 2006

to tell him a so-called living wageis but the lazy’s jealous rage.

Is it just me or judging by some of the comments, these last two lines seem pretty dead on

stevendedalus

on Feb 06, 2006

which STILL left her making quite a bit more than they did as hourlies.

And to think back in the fifties they were talking about a 30 hour work week salary!

Darn. I thought it said "coupling" Conservatives.

I was hoping to catch the Ann Coulter/Laura Ingraham bootlegs.

Now that's funny!!

stevendedalus

on Feb 06, 2006

Steven: My apologies for going kina off-topic.

Na, not really. "Hourlies" have become dominant, indicating the shakiness of our economic-work structure. Temp and day workers are becoming the norm--tragically.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!