Minimum wage
outrageous. Give them $15 an hour because
they're too lazy to keep their asses in school,
and you're exacerbating the problem, not
solving it. Why finish school when you can
earn $30K a year flipping burgers.
Quote: EvenBobAlso, the HS dropout rate in this country is
outrageous. Give them $15 an hour because
they're too lazy to keep their asses in school,
and you're exacerbating the problem, not
solving it. Why finish school when you can
earn $30K a year flipping burgers.
Efficiency. If you have an individual who would be content with flipping burgers his/her entire life, and based on the apparent fact that some people are content to do nothing their whole lives and sit around on welfare certain individuals would be, then it is actually better for them to drop out of school and get into the workforce sooner as no further educational resources will be squandered on them.
People with sufficient motivation to do something other than dredge work will remain in school, or at least people motivated to earn more than the new minimum salary for FT, and a greater amount of resources will be allocated to their endeavors given that the people who don't actually want to be in school will not feel compelled to remain there.
Quote: Mission146Efficiency. If you have an individual who would be content with flipping burgers his/her entire life,.
Then why educate them at all? Have them quit
school after 8th grade if they like, and go to
work when they're 14. Reward them with a
living wage not based on their skill level, but
based on the 'fairness' level. You realize you're
basically describing communism, right? A
guaranteed living wage for all, in a job you
can't be fired from, no matter what your
education level.
Quote: boymimboQuote: LarrySQuote: rxwine
I have a hard time believing that people are willing to volunteer to reduce their living wage, reduce their ability to save for retirement, reduce their ability to have a college fund for children, reduce their ability to afford a better healthcare plan,reduce or limit the types of vacations they can go on. ...all so kids working part time to get through a semester of college, or stay at home moms that want to get extra money for christmas. or a high school drop outs who can only scan items for a living....can get a large increase in pay for the jobs they do.....all in the name of "everyone who works needs to be able to support a family with those wages".
I support such an initiative, of course. My pay at work hasn't kept up with inflation I already donate about $1/hr of my pay to charity. Paying someone $13 - $14 hour rather than $10.25 means that my daughter will have more money for college meaning that I'm giving her less. Paying someone $13 - $14/hour means that they will be paying taxes and buying something. Paying someone $13-$14 / hour might allow a single parent to pay for meaningful daycare rather than electing to stay home on welfare, or it might allow a two-parent family to allow the other parent to do part time work only so that they can stay home with their children. Whatever happened to trickle-down economics?
I make plenty of money, and I consider myself lucky to do so. I believe that people who work 40 hours a week should have enough to support themselves and live on their own. Of course it doesn't mean that that wage should support a family of 3. I will contend that $14k/year isn't enough to support oneself.
People laugh at the steriotypical indian guy who owns the 7-11. When you look behind that, the indian people have very tight families. They will own the 7-11, live with8 people under 1 small roof. Each member does a shift at the 7-11. Everyone chips in. They dont have to worry about strange employees stealiong from them.They make sacrifices in the name of the family. They live a frugal life. And as you see it can be done
So can an individual live in an apt on their own and pay for all utilities and food, and rent by themselves on 14k? NO
But who says they have to. They have to hook up with others in their position, like the indian family.....and split expenses.
So can 2 people making 14k A YEAR live on their own....YES
can 3 people making 14k each make it.....DOUBLE YES
these people need to make it work. Its not up to me to raise their wages so that they can live and pay for all expenses by themselves. There is no moral law that says everyone needs to live by themselves.
IF your wages are too low...then just find someone in your boat and combine resources.
That is a more practical way to solve the issue.
does the govt have to hold their hands....its a simple solution...
If people are metally ill, and cant figure out this simple solution, then I agree...the govt should step in and help them.
So now you want the government to step in and effectively tell business owners how they should run their businesses? LOLQuote: boymimboTake the $2/hour or $4k/year the 4-5k employees in a 30k employee pool that it would affect and take $16-$20 million out of executive pay.
I love how all of your solutions involve dictating to businesses what they can & can't do. I also love how you always talk about big business, but never small business. FYI, many small business owners make less than $100,000/yr and don't have the luxury of taking money out of the alleged "millions" of their "executive pay".
And you ignore that the problem has gotten WORSE under Obama. *facepalm*Quote: boymimboEveryone ignores the fact that the rich keep getting richer, without impunity while the middle and lower class keep getting screwed.
Quote: boymimboGood thing you don't have a business where all of your employees were making minimum wage, because you'd probably have a huge problem with loyalty and retention, which Walmart does. And every business on the street is also paying minimum wage, and needs the labor to do the job, so prices go up or your margins go down, or both.
Ontario's minimum wage is $10.25/hr and we have plenty of employment opportunities. Everyone is on the same playing field, so prices are more expensive, which means that rather than spending $7.50 on a #1 at McDonalds or $8 on a Whopper meal or $1.60 on a Taco, you go to FreshCo and make yourself a salad instead or cook at home, heaven forbid. That's a good thing.
A higher minimum wage also means welfare rolls are smaller as more people are willing to make the jump from making $800/month sitting on their ass to $1,600/month by working.
The government is going to take care of its poor and sick, period. They are not going to let people die (though some cities have no problem letting people live in the street or in their jails, a lot of people). So you offer the basics in welfare and make the minimum wage high enough so that a jump is worth it to the individual.
Using walmart as an example defeats your argument. Yes Walmart has high turnover for cashiers. Thats because they are easily replacible. If they were hard to replace and their job required some special skill....they would have to pay more to keep them.
And if i owned an icecream shop with my wife, and I had 10 people all making minimum wage scooping ice cream and ringing the register...with either me or my wife on duty as manager in charge....why would my business be in trouble? Like the walmart cashier, ice cream scoopers and cashiers are easily replaced. If they graduate from a school or college with other expertise...they can make more money. Thats the way it works. The more skills and expertise you have...the more money you can make. The less skill or expertise you have....the more easily replacible you are.
Walmart has expanded throughout thos country and overseas with the high turnover of cashiers. The patrons of walmart dont care if they see a different cashier each time they shop. In fact the walmart by me has 8 self service registers...i dont even deal with a cashier. As more and more people get used to self check out...the poorly skilled cashier will be a job of the past.
Quote: EvenBobThen why educate them at all? Have them quit
school after 8th grade if they like, and go to
work when they're 14. Reward them with a
living wage not based on their skill level, but
based on the 'fairness' level. You realize you're
basically describing communism, right? A
guaranteed living wage for all, in a job you
can't be fired from, no matter what your
education level.
Living wage for all who work full-time, never said anything about an inability to be fired.
Quote: Mission146Living wage for all who work full-time, never said anything about an inability to be fired.
Doesn't matter. You want to reward everybody for just
showing up. No education, no skills, just show up and
and you get paid a skilled workman's wage. That's
communism in a nutshell. Takes the incentive out of
bettering yourself, as they found out in the Soviet Union.
For humans, incentive is everything. It's why we've
survived as a species. It's why capitalism works everywhere
it's been tried.
Quote: EvenBobFair? What the heck does fair have to do with
it. The guy who owns a McD's isn't rich.
That's right, most fast food places are privately
owned small businesses. They pay what they
can afford to pay. This is unskilled labor, why
should they be given skilled labor wages? Why
should a HS dropout make the same as a college
grad? That's what all this comes down to. Getting
something for nothing, the new national mindset.
I think you keyed in emphasis on the wrong word. My point was that what is getting all the headlines is low paid workers wanting/needing a raise. And that we were discussing it at length. Fair is where your kid takes their prized goat to be judged. We know life isn't fair. And that the extremely wealthy are the largest recipients of government welfare.
I worked in food service for a while and it is definitely hard. Some of those Mcd franchise owners do pretty good, and by golly they earned it, good for them. They put in many hard long days.
When I was young [like anyone wants to hear it] those jobs were all kids jobs, we all had jobs when we were very young. I don't think of flipping burgers as a career but it can be a paying job for sure. I don't know what these workers make in the expensive places to live, but I personally think fifteen dollars for the skill level required is unrealistic.
I will say we are at least talking about wages for people that are actually working, which is better than staying at home and doing nothing. I will always believe that a job provides more than just a paycheck. Sense of purpose, self esteem etc. Staying at home living off what the gov would give me would be too depressing for me. I do realize I'm wired a little different.
If this is all being hammered out on the mainstream news, I am at a disadvantage here for catching any nuances, I don't view that type of news.
Quote: EvenBobDoesn't matter. You want to reward everybody for just
showing up. No education, no skills, just show up and
and you get paid a skilled workman's wage. That's
communism in a nutshell. Takes the incentive out of
bettering yourself, as they found out in the Soviet Union.
For humans, incentive is everything. It's why we've
survived as a species. It's why capitalism works everywhere
it's been tried.
If that is communism in a nutshell how to you explain communist China?
Certainly every one has noticed that the stereotypical Indian guy owns a disproportinal amounts of 7-11's. I always assumed they got some special government loans or some extra to help provided to immigrants. Perhaps they have some kind of investment clubs or pools from back home. Knowing the 7-11 business model seem to work they have many willing investors from family members and go with what they know best.Quote: LarrySQuote: boymimboQuote: LarrySQuote: rxwine
I have a hard time believing that people are willing to volunteer to reduce their living wage, reduce their ability to save for retirement, reduce their ability to have a college fund for children, reduce their ability to afford a better healthcare plan,reduce or limit the types of vacations they can go on. ...all so kids working part time to get through a semester of college, or stay at home moms that want to get extra money for christmas. or a high school drop outs who can only scan items for a living....can get a large increase in pay for the jobs they do.....all in the name of "everyone who works needs to be able to support a family with those wages".
I support such an initiative, of course. My pay at work hasn't kept up with inflation I already donate about $1/hr of my pay to charity. Paying someone $13 - $14 hour rather than $10.25 means that my daughter will have more money for college meaning that I'm giving her less. Paying someone $13 - $14/hour means that they will be paying taxes and buying something. Paying someone $13-$14 / hour might allow a single parent to pay for meaningful daycare rather than electing to stay home on welfare, or it might allow a two-parent family to allow the other parent to do part time work only so that they can stay home with their children. Whatever happened to trickle-down economics?
I make plenty of money, and I consider myself lucky to do so. I believe that people who work 40 hours a week should have enough to support themselves and live on their own. Of course it doesn't mean that that wage should support a family of 3. I will contend that $14k/year isn't enough to support oneself.
People laugh at the steriotypical indian guy who owns the 7-11. When you look behind that, the indian people have very tight families. They will own the 7-11, live with8 people under 1 small roof. Each member does a shift at the 7-11. Everyone chips in. They dont have to worry about strange employees stealiong from them.They make sacrifices in the name of the family. They live a frugal life. And as you see it can be done
So can an individual live in an apt on their own and pay for all utilities and food, and rent by themselves on 14k? NO
But who says they have to. They have to hook up with others in their position, like the indian family.....and split expenses.
So can 2 people making 14k A YEAR live on their own....YES
can 3 people making 14k each make it.....DOUBLE YES
these people need to make it work. Its not up to me to raise their wages so that they can live and pay for all expenses by themselves. There is no moral law that says everyone needs to live by themselves.
IF your wages are too low...then just find someone in your boat and combine resources.
That is a more practical way to solve the issue.
does the govt have to hold their hands....its a simple solution...
If people are metally ill, and cant figure out this simple solution, then I agree...the govt should step in and help them.
Quote: LarryS
Liberals talk a good game about fairness and people should be entitled to support a family with minimum wage. That all sounds great.
All companies will do is shift the payroll dollars from higher earning people to the minimum wage people. Companies set aside a certain amount for payroll, and increase it or decrease it based on increases and decreases in business.
However if an artificial force(the us govt an non economic force) forces them to significantly increase hourly minimum wage, then people who are making more than minimum wage will get reduction in salary, reduction in bonus, reduction in payed sick days, reduction or elimination of paid holidays. The money has to come from somewhere.
The opposite occurs. An example is LPNs. They usually make a few dollars an hour more than minimum wage. When minimum wage goes up, so does their salaries. You won't be able to find an LPN if you only offer minimum wage. RNs make a few dollars mor an hour than LPNs. When LPNs salaries go up, so do RNs. You wont be able to find an RN if you don't pay more than you pay to an LPN. Nurse practitioners make a few dollars more per hour than Rns..... etc....
For those that think that the middle level person at a company will have their pay cut if minimum wage goes up..... trust me.... if the company could cut them the 10% right now, and still be able to find the qualified people to do the job, then the salary would already be 10% lower.
When the minimum wage rises, more likely some jobs will be lost (its not worth it for the company to pay over a certain amount for certain work), or prices will go up.
Obviously, certain industries would be far more affected.... it will hurt Microsoft far less than McDonalds. I would be interested to hear an economist's perspective on how much inflation would occur if on January 1 the federal minimum wage was raised to $15 per hour. My guess it would be a devastating blow to the economy.
People complain about the government being in one's lives if they raise the minimum wage. Government is already in business and should be, has to be. Safety regulations and workplace regulations are there to protect the worker. That's why there are laws about overtime, minimum wage, benefits, workplace safety, smoking, child labor. It takes the preferences of the employers away because some employers would have people work in rundown conditions using children paying nothing to them. And that creates an economy where unskilled labor decides to stay at home and collect a welfare check because working conditions are no better.
The minimum wage dictates the minimum cost it costs to employ someone. If you need 10 people to scoop ice cream, you are going to pay them minimum wage because you don't care about loyalty. Or maybe you do. Even if someone is replaceable (they are), people are different and have different work ethics. You still want to keep the employee (making minimum wage) who scoops fast and in addition, works independently, who bothers to smile at the customer, stay after to clean up, volunteers to work cash, cleans out the freezer window, and does additionaly tasks over and above what they are hired for, all for the same pay. You will try to keep that employee happy by offering them more shifts, more money, more benefits, free ice-cream, what have you. That employee, despite making minimum wage, is more valuable than the rest.
If minimum wage goes up, you are not all of a sudden need 8 people to scoop ice cream. You will still need 10 people. So you raise prices or lower quality. But everyone is in the same boat to do the same. So if you are paying $200/hr instead of $140/hr to your employees, you need to come up with $60/hr in increased revenue, and the only way to do that is to raise the price of ice cream, and if you are selling 200 scoops per hour, that's .33 cents per scoop.
i keep hearing, "oh no, business will suffer!" but your choices are to complain about all of the people sitting at home on welfare and not working when they could be. Why are they at home doing nothing? Because working is not a better choice for them, because the pay and working conditions suck. What is your solution? Take away their benefits and let them live on the street or in jail? There was a great story on sixty minutes about 50 - 60% of Chicago's inmates comprise of homeless people who should be in a mental institution. Of course it costs about $80 - $100k/year to keep an inmate incarcerated. Is that efficient?
What kind of society do you want to create?
Quote: EvenBobDoesn't matter. You want to reward everybody for just
showing up. No education, no skills, just show up and
and you get paid a skilled workman's wage. That's
communism in a nutshell. Takes the incentive out of
bettering yourself, as they found out in the Soviet Union.
For humans, incentive is everything. It's why we've
survived as a species. It's why capitalism works everywhere
it's been tried.
I don't support State ownership of the entire means of production, and I am also a proponent of the aspect of the current system that would have skilled professions earn more than unskilled professions. If you want a good vision of my system, in a nutshell, Norway probably comes the closest. There are a few differences, half of which are in criminal law, but they're pretty close to my ideal system.
Quote: SOOPOO
Obviously, certain industries would be far more affected.... it will hurt Microsoft far less than McDonalds. I would be interested to hear an economist's perspective on how much inflation would occur if on January 1 the federal minimum wage was raised to $15 per hour. My guess it would be a devastating blow to the economy.
Clearly, you can't just do that, and I would imply that to suggest anyone believes that you can is something of a strawman.
The first thing that has to happen is that the Government would have to take over certain industries which are now private, chiefly among those are the energy industry and the education industry. Public college needs to be basically free while for-profit private schools may continue to exist...though many will fail.
The reason for taking over energy is in order to deliver the product very close to at-cost, what that will accomplish for other businesses is that it will reduce the revenues that are currently devoted to paying the utility bills. Secondly, it will also be a benefit to the people at-large, so now, perhaps minimum wage wouldn't necessarily need to be $15/hour if heating/electricity costs were significantly reduced.
The reason that the Government primarily needs to make public college education free is because the skilled workers won't come out of college mired in student loan debt, what that will clearly accomplish is that the skilled workers that come out of school won't necessarily need to be paid wages quite as high as they currently are because they won't have a big monthly student loan payment that needs to be made.
The next thing that needs to happen is that prison funding needs to be seriously cut. The easiest way to do that is to make the majority of criminal offenses be death penalty offenses, and also to get rid of appeals in cases where there is indisputable physical evidence of the crime. It's a waste of both time and resources for a verdict to get tossed over something procedural, so we're done with that. Also, prisoners of any kind will no longer have any access to healthcare whatsoever, other than the most basic healthcare, because, why?
The other thing about healthcare is that the Government is going to need to take the majority of that industry over, and in so doing, the Government is going to operate hospitals and medical centers at something close to at cost. Furthermore, medical malpractice suits will cease to exist completely, with exception to any litigation that might rise out of malpractice of a private healthcare provider.
The Government will also take over pharmaceuticals, operating with a goal of 20% revenue over cost which is to be devoted entirely to research and development.
Whatever the minimum wage is, the majority of the Government workers in these industries shall be paid the minimum wage, with obvious exception to highly skilled positions. Virtually all Administrative/Clerical jobs will be paid the minimum salary, though.
The Government will also take over the majority of the basic grocery industry with respect to production, distribution and there will be Government stores. There will still be a private industry for grocery, particularly with respect to specialty items, and Government stores will not compete in the market of specialty items. Virtually all grocery store and distribution employees, with exception to upper-management, will be paid the Federal Minimum Salary and the Government stores will otherwise operate on an at-cost basis.
The Government will proceed to build massive housing developments which are to be operated and maintained at an at-cost basis. These developments will exclusively be income-based, with exception to people who already live there who have seen an increase in income. For the latter type of people, the Government shall charge these people based on a flat percentage of income (giving them incentive to re-locate if they are making a lot) and it is from these people that the Government shall make a small profit on these developments which will go into the building/maintenance of further developments.
The Government will take over with respect to timber and other building materials which will be sold at a near at-cost basis. Private enterprises may still exist in this regard with respect to specialty products, and the Government shall not compete in this market.
The Government shall take over all banks and will insure all deposits of any amount. The Government will lend conservatively and only to those who have established creditworthiness, or have no credit, and shall focus most of their lending on the basis of income. The payment system shall be entirely electronic, and any loans made by the Government shall be made at a rate no greater than 2% APR and the funds to pay the loan shall be withdrawn from an individual's wages or salary prior to the person seeing any of it in order to ensure payment.
All Government bank employees, with exception to upper-management, shall be paid at the Federal Minimum Salary.
The Government shall take over a not insignificant portion of the auto industry, and will engage in the mass production of only one type of automobile with strong fuel economy and good reliability. These vehicles will be offered at very close to an at-cost basis. The Government shall not compete or produce in other than the economy car market. The vast majority of employees associated with the Government Autos shall be paid the Federal Minimum Salary, with exception to upper management.
The Government shall enforce a standard of employment to such extent that the only individuals entitled to any kind of social welfare shall be those who are deemed to have lost their jobs by any means other than indisputable fault of their own. The Government shall have an agency that proactively seeks employment, including in any of the Government industries, for the individual though the individual is free to still seek his own employment. In the event that the individual has not found his own employment within thirty days, then the individual must accept whatever job the Government finds for him or shall be cut off from all assistance.
At such time that all of these things have been accomplished, and the costs of basic living have been reduced to the greatest possible extent pursuant to the Government's, "At-Cost," policy, then the minimum annual salary shall fluctuate based entirely on those expenses, plus thirty percent, and will quite possibly be less than $15.00 per hour.
All welfare and unemployment benefits shall be based upon a family consisting of two adults and one child, with exception to families that are two adults only or households with only a single adult. People will be expected to be able to take care of any additional children, in all scenarios, by way of both adult members of the family working, if necessary. The Government shall offer, in addition to free healthcare, free tubal lobotomies and vasectomies for all who request same. The Government will strongly encourage individuals who have a child, yet live making the federal minimum salary, to have a vasectomy or tubal lobotomy completed immediately.
If a couple or single female shall become pregnant while making the federal minimum salary, and the couple or individual already has a child, then an abortion shall be conducted and the pregnancy shall be terminated as soon as practicable. The female shall be encouraged to undergo a tubal lobotomy, or the male a vasectomy, in the case of a couple.
Marijuana will be legalized and will be taxed as cigarettes presently are. In fact, they won't need to be taxed because the Government shall control the entire marijuana industry, with exception to contracts for the cultivation of marijuana, and all who attempt to compete with the Government in the realm of marijuana will be summarily executed.
Prostitution will be legalized and shall take place in Government brothels. The Government shall maintain strict health standards and testing for both prostitute and client, on a weekly basis. Any attempt to compete with the Government in the realm of prostitution, in terms of being either a pimp or a ho, shall result in summary execution.
All monies for utilities, housing and transportation (as applicable) shall be deducted from an individual's pay and the individual's card shall be debited with whatever amount remains after the fact. Individuals shall be incapable of spending money irresponsibly prior to the bills being paid, which will virtually eliminate loan defaults of any kind. If an individual is found to still be managing money irresponsibly such that the individual must seek food assistance due to not having enough money to get food, the individual shall be issued a secondary card upon which a pre-allocated percentage of remaining income, after living expenses, shall be put and said card may only be used for food purchases.
The minimum retirement age shall be sixty at which point the individual shall be compensated in the amount of the Federal Minimum Wage, though the individual may opt to continue to work instead, if the individual wishes. The maximum age to receive the guaranteed wage shall be seventy-five, at which point the individual shall be summarily executed unless the individual either has employment or family to take care of the individual's living expenses.
All items with a special Government tax shall be taxed as they are now, with exception to the fact that the Government shall control all petroleum distribution and sales and same will be sold as close to an at-cost basis as practicable.
The Government shall endeavor to take over a portion of the clothing industry and shall deliver basic and uniform clothing as close to an at-cost basis as practicable.
Given that the Government shall be involved in so many industries, all taxes, with exception to a flat 3% Federal Sales Tax shall be abolished immediately.
Keeping costs down, maximizing employment and the movement of money shall ensure that individuals may live a basic and comfortable existence as cheaply as possible which, in turn, will enable the Federal Minimum Salary to be kept at a reasonable level. To afford something other than this basic and mere, "Comfortable existence," shall incentivize further educational and training endeavors. Hard work shall be rewarded as it is now, though there will be a cap of roughly $5,000,000/year on an individual's income.
Quote: FaceStephen King ain't got shit on Mission. Talk about a terrifying read... I am physically uncomfortable after having read that.
LOL, yep, that was a scary read. I had to read it in parts because I was shaking so badly.
Quote: SOOPOOThe opposite occurs. An example is LPNs. They usually make a few dollars an hour more than minimum wage. When minimum wage goes up, so does their salaries. You won't be able to find an LPN if you only offer minimum wage. RNs make a few dollars mor an hour than LPNs. When LPNs salaries go up, so do RNs. You wont be able to find an RN if you don't pay more than you pay to an LPN. Nurse practitioners make a few dollars more per hour than Rns..... etc....
For those that think that the middle level person at a company will have their pay cut if minimum wage goes up..... trust me.... if the company could cut them the 10% right now, and still be able to find the qualified people to do the job, then the salary would already be 10% lower.
When the minimum wage rises, more likely some jobs will be lost (its not worth it for the company to pay over a certain amount for certain work), or prices will go up.
Obviously, certain industries would be far more affected.... it will hurt Microsoft far less than McDonalds. I would be interested to hear an economist's perspective on how much inflation would occur if on January 1 the federal minimum wage was raised to $15 per hour. My guess it would be a devastating blow to the economy.
Thats ridiculous. I am a pharmacist and have worked with alot of LPNS and RNS over the years and never have they been tied to minimum wage activity unless they were unionized and it was in their contract. In the past when min wage went up a dollar in retail all that occured was a hiring freeze and people werent replaced. and the rest of us had to do more with less. But if we are talking about a significant increase of 4 or 5 dollars to provide a "living wage"...then other measures that I indicated would kick in.
Quote: boymimboI agree with Soopoo. Doubling the minimum wage of course would be devastating to the economy. That's why it's not happening. I don't support such a change.
People complain about the government being in one's lives if they raise the minimum wage. Government is already in business and should be, has to be. Safety regulations and workplace regulations are there to protect the worker. That's why there are laws about overtime, minimum wage, benefits, workplace safety, smoking, child labor. It takes the preferences of the employers away because some employers would have people work in rundown conditions using children paying nothing to them. And that creates an economy where unskilled labor decides to stay at home and collect a welfare check because working conditions are no better.
The minimum wage dictates the minimum cost it costs to employ someone. If you need 10 people to scoop ice cream, you are going to pay them minimum wage because you don't care about loyalty. Or maybe you do. Even if someone is replaceable (they are), people are different and have different work ethics. You still want to keep the employee (making minimum wage) who scoops fast and in addition, works independently, who bothers to smile at the customer, stay after to clean up, volunteers to work cash, cleans out the freezer window, and does additionaly tasks over and above what they are hired for, all for the same pay. You will try to keep that employee happy by offering them more shifts, more money, more benefits, free ice-cream, what have you. That employee, despite making minimum wage, is more valuable than the rest.
If minimum wage goes up, you are not all of a sudden need 8 people to scoop ice cream. You will still need 10 people. So you raise prices or lower quality. But everyone is in the same boat to do the same. So if you are paying $200/hr instead of $140/hr to your employees, you need to come up with $60/hr in increased revenue, and the only way to do that is to raise the price of ice cream, and if you are selling 200 scoops per hour, that's .33 cents per scoop.
i keep hearing, "oh no, business will suffer!" but your choices are to complain about all of the people sitting at home on welfare and not working when they could be. Why are they at home doing nothing? Because working is not a better choice for them, because the pay and working conditions suck. What is your solution? Take away their benefits and let them live on the street or in jail? There was a great story on sixty minutes about 50 - 60% of Chicago's inmates comprise of homeless people who should be in a mental institution. Of course it costs about $80 - $100k/year to keep an inmate incarcerated. Is that efficient?
What kind of society do you want to create?
People sit home on welfare as you say.....not because jobs dont pay enough...but because the govt doesnt give them an incentive to get off their ass. So if their "benefits" decrease over time....they know its time to develope a skill, practice typing at home, practice speaking better english....all can be done inexpensively of for free. And if they dont develope a skill..they will seek work flipping burgers so that their "benefits" dont completely run run, or dont run out to the point where they have to cut back and make sacrifices...Because you know what....no one likes to make sacrifices.
So again...one person making 14k a year cannot pay all expenses on their own....so they have to share living expense with another person making 14k...and all of a sudden they can pay rent foold and utilities without govt intervention. Is it inconvenient...sure. But who said life shoud be convenient.
However, in the infamous words of Judge Smails:
Now take that incredible list of anti-capitalist screed and write a cautionary tale from within that world, a la George Orwell. Should be very interesting. BTW, where you say
The Government shall offer, in addition to free healthcare, free tubal lobotomies and vasectomies for all who request same. The Government will strongly encourage individuals who have a child, yet live making the federal minimum salary, to have a vasectomy or tubal lobotomy completed immediately.
I'm pretty sure you meant "tubal ligation" in each of the 3 (2 shown here) places you made that reference. "Lobotomy" is more likely referring to other organs which have lobes, like brains or livers. Tubal ligation is the severing or constriction of the fallopian tubes leading between the ova and the uterus, and is a common laproscopic birth control procedure these days.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy" - Anonymous
Thats what liberals think is a good response of a welfare recipient. If they get a minimum wage job and it only reduces their welfare handout...and in the end they get the same monthly dollars....then its understandable that they sit home and collect the full welfare check...generation after generation
and instead of them/like your house guest having a sense of fair play and honesty...they instead have a sense of entitlement. They start off with the premise that they are entitled to the govt chack...and its up to the govt to give them incentive to get off their often fat behind and work.
And liberals say..poor poor welfare people....WE need to give them incentive to go to work. They are right to sit home...WE are the prioblem...WE havent provided them high enough paying jobs for their non existant skill set. Its all our fault,
Like i said..if welfare checks get reduced by 10 percent a year.....there will be plenty incentive to seek employment because when you cant afford cable, or unlimited texting or cant buy new furniture......all of a sudden flipping burgers aint that bad. And when you cant afford to run the air conditioner in the summer....all of a sudden flipping burgers aint that bad.
Bur liberals think we need to raise wages so these people will do us a favor and finally grace our establishments as a hired worker.
Quote: LarrySA friend of yours loses his job and comes to stay with your for free. He is eating your food, using your utilities, taking up the rental space you pay for. After 3 months you say.hey why dont you at least get a minimum wage job to pay for expenses...and the answer you get is...why should I work a minimum wage job if all the money is gonna go to you.
Thats what liberals think is a good response of a welfare recipient. If they get a minimum wage job and it only reduces their welfare handout...and in the end they get the same monthly dollars....then its understandable that they sit home and collect the full welfare check...generation after generation
and instead of them/like your house guest having a sense of fair play and honesty...they instead have a sense of entitlement. They start off with the premise that they are entitled to the govt chack...and its up to the govt to give them incentive to get off their often fat behind and work.
And liberals say..poor poor welfare people....WE need to give them incentive to go to work. They are right to sit home...WE are the prioblem...WE havent provided them high enough paying jobs for their non existant skill set. Its all our fault,
Like i said..if welfare checks get reduced by 10 percent a year.....there will be plenty incentive to seek employment because when you cant afford cable, or unlimited texting or cant buy new furniture......all of a sudden flipping burgers aint that bad. And when you cant afford to run the air conditioner in the summer....all of a sudden flipping burgers aint that bad.
Bur liberals think we need to raise wages so these people will do us a favor and finally grace our establishments as a hired worker.
I know no liberals who think this way. None. I do know that, as long as child care and travel expenses commuting to a job take more of a welfare recipient's paycheck than receiving welfare itself pays, that choice will continue to outweigh the choice to work for minimum wage. Whether you get there by continuing to reform welfare with incentives to work, raising the minimum wage, or some other method is an argument of process, not philosophy.
The liberal/conservative argument at its heart is whether or not community has a duty to its less fortunate, or whether it's every person for themselves. I think that investments in infrastructure, research and education, all of which have been cut or deferred into near-nonexistence for political reasons, is disasterous in the long-term interests of this country's profitability and well-being, and if we returned to long-term planning and investment, many of the issues debated in this thread would be abated or negated over time. If that makes me a "liberal", fine. It also makes me a person who can observe accurately what has worked and what hasn't in the past.
Quote: beachbumbabsI know no liberals
Nor do I... :-)
Quote: beachbumbabsI know no liberals who think this way. None. I do know that, as long as child care and travel expenses commuting to a job take more of a welfare recipient's paycheck than receiving welfare itself pays, that choice will continue to outweigh the choice to work for minimum wage. Whether you get there by continuing to reform welfare with incentives to work, raising the minimum wage, or some other method is an argument of process, not philosophy.
The liberal/conservative argument at its heart is whether or not community has a duty to its less fortunate, or whether it's every person for themselves. I think that investments in infrastructure, research and education, all of which have been cut or deferred into near-nonexistence for political reasons, is disasterous in the long-term interests of this country's profitability and well-being, and if we returned to long-term planning and investment, many of the issues debated in this thread would be abated or negated over time. If that makes me a "liberal", fine. It also makes me a person who can observe accurately what has worked and what hasn't in the past.
you say you dont think that way but then give an example showing that you DO think that way.
Like I said....people in the same boat can live together and help with expenses.
you talk about daycare...well with all the govt free education on birthcontrol, and the ability of people to get free condoms and oral contraceptives..we have an epidemic of children having children.Why? because its so cool to drop out of highschool and live on a welfare check. Play like you are "on your own".
Friends and family have to help the irresponsible folks out....not a faceless govt. Its so easy to inconvenience a faceless govt by taking its money....than to inconveniece friend and relatives. It does take a villiage. Not a govt.
the person who thinks its cool to have a kid and in your example needs daycare in order to work runs to the govt for a handloit rather than inconveniencing their friends and families. Its not like they are refugess from another country that have no contacts. If relatives on welfare has to dig into their pockets and pay for the irresponsible behavior..believe me...the 2nd thirs and fouth child wont be popping out as easily as when the faceless govt just hands over the cash without nagging without judgement.
And the system is abused by some well off people. I had a doctor's mother come into the pharmacy on welfare(medicaide) to pay for her perscriptions. The son knew how to work the system. He cold well afford to help mom with bills, but she had her hand out for govt support.
the welfare system promotes laziness, promotes families to stay away and force the govt to do what they should be doing.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe liberal/conservative argument at its heart is whether or not community has a duty to its less fortunate, or whether it's every person for themselves.
Is this the argument, though?
I know a few on the dole who truly need it. Let's take the guy down the street. He's crippled both mentally and physically. Sure, he can "take care of himself", he doesn't need a handler, but this guy ain't holding even the most menial of jobs. He can make it across the street for groceries, can occassionally be seen at the park digging for soda cans, but that's about all the activity he can manage. He has no car. Has a small TV, but no cable. Does smoke, but doesn't drink or do drugs. The dole for him supplies him food, housing, and the wheelbarrow full of meds required to keep him alive and mostly sane.
Without the dole, this man would surely die, no question in my mind. Maybe a conservative here can correct me, but I don't think they're saying to end the dole for guys like this.
In that same project, there's more than one 20-30something on the dole as well. They got the ricer with the rims and stereo, the flatscreen with DishTV, you know the type. The kind that's abusing the system. The kind that's using EBT for junk food and casino play. The "who's gonna pay for a these kids" kind. The ones that are fit enough to chase each other around, wrestle, toss the ball, hack the sack, yet ain't working because "ain't nobody got time fo dat".
It's these types I think the conservatives, and me especially, WANT to see endure some hardships. If crippled man wastes away with no dole, my heart would break. If these welfare rats had to suffer, I'd be in a shadenfreude ecstacy that EB could only wish he could experience.
I have ZERO compassion for these latter types, but it seems, by the responses here, that these types have us held hostage.
Quote: aceofspadesAs a business owner, I have chosen to not start a family. If I cannot bring in new clients, guess what…no money. No safety net for me. Yet, I see plenty of minimum wage people at fast food and other such places of employ, with 2 or 3 kids, using government assistance. Where is the personal responsibility? What about making choices commensurate with your abilities to raise a family? If you are making minimum wage…your thoughts should be about self-improvement, not starting a family.
The problem is, many responsible, educated people like you keep making this decision, and the irresponsible, uneducated ones keep having children. So our country gets more and more strained. And unfortunately, there are few ways to get around this other than forced government sterilization (one of many things mission described in his Orwellian society). I hope he doesn't think all of that is a good idea! Yikes!
And great pic of Smails, btw.
Being unemployed right now, ugh, the LAST thing I want to do is get my g/f pregnant, and currently, she agrees.
Quote: FaceStephen King ain't got shit on Mission. Talk about a terrifying read... I am physically uncomfortable after having read that.
My method is very efficient.
It seems that we both agree that people, or at least one member of a family, should feel compelled to work.
Quote: aceofspadesI think there should be a financial cutoff for being able to have a child. The system's safety net (which is constantly abused) should be removed.
I'm reminded of an excellent Dilbert comic.
Quote: aceofspadesI think there should be a financial cutoff for being able to have a child. The system's safety net (which is constantly abused) should be removed.
I don't know if it was national or only local, but a few years ago there was a radio ad for a cheap fertility clinic that said "having a child shouldn't come down to money." The quote is taken out of context, but still it got to the point where I would have to change the station when I heard it come on because it made me so mad.
Do the feel that welfare people are mentally ill, or less than human? Cant they figure out to combine resources? Couldnt 2 single moms each with 2 babies, get an apt togehter and each have a job for different shifts....each taking care of the others children. Yeah life is hard. Even if one person worked 3 days a week and the other worked 4 days a week. Are they too stiupid to figure this arraingement out? Is there a scarcity of single moms?
Even for single people making 10k a year. Just live together and combine resopurces without holding your hand out.
where is it stated that people should no have to go out of their way to find a solution rather than to hold out their hand for govt funds.
Is there some law or moral code that says people on welfare all must have their own place to live? No sharing? They all deserve money to support a single person in a single apartment? Really? You mean the govt handing out the money shouldnt encourage "roomate" situations to make money last. And if people dont like living a life with a roomate and want privacy...well then go get a job. Better yourself, get out of the situation you dislike.
I live near san francisco. There are plenty of hard working people who in order to afford living expenses take in one or 2 roomates. Its done all the time.
so why cant people on welfare be required to do the same.
liberals think the people on welfare are like puppy dogs that need to be housed and fed...they are helpless.
You mean the govt cant tell thse folks.......you are expected to get a job , even minimum wage, to at least defray the cost of the welfare payout to you....and if child care is too high, then get a friend or relative to take care of your children, and if you cant do that, then find a roomate single mom and alternate watching each others children. Oh yeah, you wont be able to go clubbing each weekenbd..but thats what irresponsible people have to sacrifice when they have children before they can afford to support them.
Quote: LarrySI get a kick out of the liberals wringing their hands making excuses that welfare people cannot get minimum wage jobs because child care would eat it all up.
Do the feel that welfare people are mentally ill, or less than human? Cant they figure out to combine resources? Couldnt 2 single moms each with 2 babies, get an apt togehter and each have a job for different shifts....each taking care of the others children. Yeah life is hard. Even if one persobn wroked 3 days a week and the other worked 4 days a week. Are they too stiupid to figure this arraingement out? Is there a scarcity of single moms?
Even for single people making 10k a year. Just live together and combine resopurces without holding your hand out.
where is it stated that people should no have to go out of their way to find a solution rather than to hold out their hand for govt funds.
Is there some law or moral code that says people on welfare all must have their own place to live? No sharing? They all deserve money to support a single person in a single apartment? Really? You mean the govt handing out the money shouldnt encourage "roomate" situations to make money last. And if people dont like living a life with a roomate and want privacy...well then go get a job. Better yourself, get out of the situation you dislike.
I live near san francisco. There are plenty of hard working people who in order to afford living expenses take in one or 2 roomates. Its done all the time.
so why cant people on welfare be required to do the same.
liberals think the people on welfare are like puppy dogs that need to be housed and fed...they are helpless.
You mean the govt cant tell thse folks.......you are expected to get a job , even minimum wage, to at least defray the cost of the welfare payout to you....and if child care is too high, then get a friend or relative to take care of your children, and if you cant do that, then find a roomate single mom and alternate watching each others children. Oh yeah, you wont be able to go clubbing each weekenbd..but thats what irresponsible people have to sacrifice when they have children before they can afford to support them.
+1 for personal responsibility
If you can't afford a child, don't have one!! I'm not talking about abortion--I'm talking about not getting pregnant in the first place.
There is no longer any shame in single, unemployed, financially inept child bearing. Women aren't the same as men, try is we might to make it so. That scumbag who wants to get between those legs already has five kids by five other moms...and you think he is going to stay with YOU???
I'm not saying we shouldn't help people in need, but the idea of each program needs to be to get all but the worst off OUT of need.
Why does the school nurse in town keep pictures of all the kids the kids in the school are having? Stupid. Don't encourage the wrong behavior.
Quote: LarrySI get a kick out of the liberals wringing their hands making excuses that welfare people cannot get minimum wage jobs because child care would eat it all up.
Do the feel that welfare people are mentally ill, or less than human? Cant they figure out to combine resources? Couldnt 2 single moms each with 2 babies, get an apt togehter and each have a job for different shifts....each taking care of the others children. Yeah life is hard. Even if one person worked 3 days a week and the other worked 4 days a week. Are they too stiupid to figure this arraingement out? Is there a scarcity of single moms?
Even for single people making 10k a year. Just live together and combine resopurces without holding your hand out.
where is it stated that people should no have to go out of their way to find a solution rather than to hold out their hand for govt funds.
Typically, any kind of welfare, food stamp allocation or Government housing is based upon household income. If two people are living together, (unless you want them to lie) then they are going to lose on benefits to which they are presently otherwise entitled and will have a worse standard of living for it.
I tend to agree with you with respect to single people, although, I believe there is a pretty high standard for single people to get any kind of welfare, anyway. I know it's less than 15K annually for food assistance for a single person in Ohio, having to pay child support doesn't count, I don't recall the exact number but it is close to (but less than) 15K.
Yeah, but if you had two single Moms both work and pool resources, the lack of privacy and the hectic schedule would essentially have them living worse than they had been living alone when they lose the benefits. Furthermore, and my Mom actually works in public housing, so I know that if you had two unrelated adults with two unrelated kids, (and no exceptions if the kids are of different genders) then they would be required to have a place with four bedrooms. You might be able to find something like that on HUD, but such places are few and far between, and it would be exceedingly rare to find that in straight income-based public housing...again, unless you want them to lie.
Basically, then, such people attempting to do the thing you suggested are now going to be relegated to the private housing market, and would also be unlikely to qualify for any kind of assistance programs in terms of home energy, where utilities are commonly included in public housing establishments.
Ironically, it is the very regulations of Government housing that make what you suggest impossible for many people. In some cases, two kids of the same gender, though unrelated, may be allowed to share a bedroom, so then you'd be looking at a three-bedroom place. Although, I believe that sexual orientation is now protected in this regard, so the couple in question could claim to be lesbians, so that's one less bedroom you would need.
Quote: RonC+1 for personal responsibility
If you can't afford a child, don't have one!! I'm not talking about abortion--I'm talking about not getting pregnant in the first place.
That works out well, because there has never been anyone out there, in terms of educators, saying, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't get pregnant if you aren't ready to financially support a child."
This is the point I'm trying to make, I'm an idealist one way and you guys are idealists the other way. You cannot simply will everyone to exercise personal responsibility, so there are going to be pregnancies that would be better off having never occurred. When we accept that such pregnancies are occasionally going to occur, then the pragmatic thing to do is decide where we are going to go from there, rather than uselessly urinating into the wind by repeatedly suggesting that the pregnancies should not have occurred in the first place.
Quote:There is no longer any shame in single, unemployed, financially inept child bearing. Women aren't the same as men, try is we might to make it so. That scumbag who wants to get between those legs already has five kids by five other moms...and you think he is going to stay with YOU???
Again, you are advocating intelligent decision-making with respect to an individual female's choice for a partner, or alternatively, for certain males not to sleep with every female with whom they have such an opportunity. Nice sentiment, not happening.
Quote: RonC+1 for personal responsibility
If you can't afford a child, don't have one!! I'm not talking about abortion--I'm talking about not getting pregnant in the first place.
There is no longer any shame in single, unemployed, financially inept child bearing. Women aren't the same as men, try is we might to make it so. That scumbag who wants to get between those legs already has five kids by five other moms...and you think he is going to stay with YOU???
I'm not saying we shouldn't help people in need, but the idea of each program needs to be to get all but the worst off OUT of need.
Why does the school nurse in town keep pictures of all the kids the kids in the school are having? Stupid. Don't encourage the wrong behavior.
I am pro-abortion
We are on this earth but for 100 years, on a planet that has been around for 4.5 billion years and tracable juman history for at least 6,000 years. I know that in 100 years, I will be forgotten. My money will be long gone, and I will have been recycled into the ground. How many of us can name each of our 8 great-grandparents and list some facts about their lives? Yeah, I worked hard, and provided for my child, my wife, and my ex-wife, and I was productive, but it is my choice to do so, not my duty.
I am lucky to live in Canada, in a country that is near the top of the heap in richness, living in marvelous splendor, better than 98% of the humans on this planet. I was lucky to be born to middle class parents, lucky to have been nurtured by my parents, lucky that my dad could have a job that could provide for a family of four, and lucky that i had the DNA and the smarts to eventually become what I am today. I am lucky to have decent health, lucky to still be working, lucky to be married and lucky to be in the circumstances that I am in, able to opine on shit like this on my leather couch with my flat screen TV on my laptop in my warm and safe home.
Don't get me wrong. I worked hard to be where I am at today, but that was my choice to do so, instilled in me by my parent's valuesand enabled through my natural intelligence via my DNA.
Some people aren't so lucky as me, I would say about 99of the general population and 90of the western population is less lucky than me when it comes to financial success. That said, I think everyone who is born on this planet is entitled to happiness.
Happiness, however isn't all about money, and if it is to you, might I suggest you look around at the world and see where the happiest people live because it isn't in the richest country in the world.
I attest that it is basic security that leads to conditions that allow people to be happy. And that's why i support an increased minimum wage. If you work 40 hours a week, be it skilled or unskilled, I think you have the right to live with the basics of life. And if you can't work or choose not do, then i support the government providing basic food, shelter, and services to its citizens.
I feel this way because some people are not so lucky. They are not born with parents who enables them to flourish. They are born with below average IQs. They don't have the means to become successful. They are unlucky in the choices that they make. These people, in God's eyes, are no less important than I am. There is no reason why they don't deserve the basics of life.
I'll say it again. Why work for $7.25/hour and have a menial existence when you can sit on your duff and have the same menial existence without the hardships of work?
Quote: boymimboI'm going to take the Christian view on this one. As is said in Ecclesiastes Chapter 5: "Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless. As goods increase, so do those who consume them. And what benefit are they to the owner except to feast his eyes on them? The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether he eats little or much, but the abundance of a rich man permits him no sleep. I have seen a grievous evil under the sun: wealth hoarded to the harm of its owner, or wealth lost through some misfortune... Naked a man comes from his mothers womb, and as he comes, so he departs..."
We are on this earth but for 100 years, on a planet that has been around for 4.5 billion years and tracable juman history for at least 6,000 years. I know that in 100 years, I will be forgotten. My money will be long gone, and I will have been recycled into the ground. How many of us can name each of our 8 great-grandparents and list some facts about their lives? Yeah, I worked hard, and provided for my child, my wife, and my ex-wife, and I was productive, but it is my choice to do so, not my duty.
I am lucky to live in Canada, in a country that is near the top of the heap in richness, living in marvelous splendor, better than 98% of the humans on this planet. I was lucky to be born to middle class parents, lucky to have been nurtured by my parents, lucky that my dad could have a job that could provide for a family of four, and lucky that i had the DNA and the smarts to eventually become what I am today. I am lucky to have decent health, lucky to still be working, lucky to be married and lucky to be in the circumstances that I am in, able to opine on shit like this on my leather couch with my flat screen TV on my laptop in my warm and safe home.
Don't get me wrong. I worked hard to be where I am at today, but that was my choice to do so, instilled in me by my parent's valuesand enabled through my natural intelligence via my DNA.
Some people aren't so lucky as me, I would say about 99of the general population and 90of the western population is less lucky than me when it comes to financial success. That said, I think everyone who is born on this planet is entitled to happiness.
Happiness, however isn't all about money, and if it is to you, might I suggest you look around at the world and see where the happiest people live because it isn't in the richest country in the world.
I attest that it is basic security that leads to conditions that allow people to be happy. And that's why i support an increased minimum wage. If you work 40 hours a week, be it skilled or unskilled, I think you have the right to live with the basics of life. And if you can't work or choose not do, then i support the government providing basic food, shelter, and services to its citizens.
I feel this way because some people are not so lucky. They are not born with parents who enables them to flourish. They are born with below average IQs. They don't have the means to become successful. They are unlucky in the choices that they make. These people, in God's eyes, are no less important than I am. There is no reason why they don't deserve the basics of life.
I'll say it again. Why work for $7.25/hour and have a menial existence when you can sit on your duff and have the same menial existence without the hardships of work?
Great letter, boymimbo.
Quote: LarrySI get a kick out of the liberals wringing their hands making excuses that welfare people cannot get minimum wage jobs because child care would eat it all up.
I don't think liberals are saying they can't get minimum-wage jobs. They just understand under the current system, it's more beneficial for some of them to just stay at home with the kids instead of working for effectively free if they don't have access to free (or very very cheap) child-care. Why would anyone work a job at $7.25/hr if the daycare costs them $7 or more per hour? From this, it sounds like it can cost that much in some places for infants and toddlers. But Republicans don't care, they think the lazy ***** should work anyway even if their net wage after childcare equals slavery. Fwiw, I do think they shouldn't have got knocked up in the first place...or *gasp* had an abortion, but I can't control people.
http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-much-youll-spend-on-childcare_1199776.bc
Quote: tringlomaneI don't think liberals are saying they can't get minimum-wage jobs. They just understand under the current system, it's more beneficial for some of them to just stay at home with the kids instead of working for effectively free if they don't have access to free (or very very cheap) child-care. Why would anyone work a job at $7.25/hr if the daycare costs them $7 or more per hour? From this, it sounds like it can cost that much in some places for infants and toddlers. But Republicans don't care, they think the lazy ***** should work anyway even if their net wage after childcare equals slavery. Fwiw, I do think they shouldn't have got knocked up in the first place...or *gasp* had an abortion, but I can't control people.
http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-much-youll-spend-on-childcare_1199776.bc
No assuming one parent can stay home then one should be working. If its only one parent then its the parent's responsibility to find a relative to watch the child or hook up with another single parent and get jobs at different shifts to watch each others kids.
If they go to relatives first they will get an earful.andf maybe wont produce any omore children in an irresponsible manner. It takes a village...not a govt.
Didnt one of your liberal leaders tout that it takes a village.....well when someone produces a baby without the means to pay for it...then it takes their friends and relatives to chip in to resolve the problem. Its not govt's problem
people cant afford to live on minimum wage...then team up with others and live together and pool resources
middle class people in sanfrancisco do it..they take on roomates to be able to pay high rent....so why couldnt welfare people live together and pool fiancial resources and baby sitting chores.
Quote: tringlomaneI don't think liberals are saying they can't get minimum-wage jobs. They just understand under the current system, it's more beneficial for some of them to just stay at home with the kids instead of working for effectively free if they don't have access to free (or very very cheap) child-care. Why would anyone work a job at $7.25/hr if the daycare costs them $7 or more per hour? From this, it sounds like it can cost that much in some places for infants and toddlers. But Republicans don't care, they think the lazy ***** should work anyway even if their net wage after childcare equals slavery. Fwiw, I do think they shouldn't have got knocked up in the first place...or *gasp* had an abortion, but I can't control people.
http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-much-youll-spend-on-childcare_1199776.bc
Exactly, and as I pointed out before, it's not just about the child care costs where there previously weren't any, but cuts in any kind of benefits are going to be income-based cuts. These income-based cuts do not take child care costs into consideration, so my point is that it is very conceivable that some individuals could go to work just to be worse off than before they were working.
Here's a single Mother with two kids who gets $200/month Child Support:
CS: $200
Food Stamps: $497
Cash Benefits: $600
Monthly Income: $1297
Working 35 Hours/week at $8.00
Pay less 8%: (35 * 8 * 4.1) * .92 = $1,056.16
Child Support: $200
Cash Assistance: $0
Food Stamps: $212
Monthly Income: $1,468.16
Difference: 1468.16 - 1297 = +$171.16*** (171.16/143.5 = Effective Pay of $1.19/hour)
***
A.) There are no child care costs in this scenario
B.) Gas costs for transportation to and from work are not factored in.
C.) Clothing costs for work clothes are not factored in.
D.) Vehicle maintenance not factored in.
Using the calculator, I decided to input monthly dependent care costs of a very cheap $250/month (impossible!) and food stamps went up $112/month as a result. Cash assistance would still be nothing as it is strictly based on gross income.
New Numbers: +171.16 + 112 (Increase to Food Stamps) - 250 = $33.16 or 33.16/143.5 = Effective Pay of $0.23/hour, still doesn't account for costs.
Quote: LarrySNo assuming one parent can stay home then one should be working. If its only one parent then its the parent's responsibility to find a relative to watch the chile or hook up with another single parent and get jobs ay different shifts to watch each others kids.
But what if the single mom is thousands of miles away from family, and she's a bitch? Then what? lol
Generally speaking, yes, they should take more responsibility, but life isn't easy sometimes. Personally I have had the worst 4 years of my life now...and probably will have a few more ahead of me at the minimum. And my own problems are not as bad as millions of Americans and billions worldwide. God forbid if I had kids, or no family for support.
Quote: Mission146Exactly, and as I pointed out before, it's not just about the child care costs where there previously weren't any, but cuts in any kind of benefits are going to be income-based cuts. These income-based cuts do not take child care costs into consideration, so my point is that it is very conceivable that some individuals could go to work just to be worse off than before they were working.
Here's a single Mother with two kids who gets $200/month Child Support:
CS: $200
Food Stamps: $497
Cash Benefits: $600
Monthly Income: $1297
Working 35 Hours/week at $8.00
Pay less 8%: (35 * 8 * 4.1) * .92 = $1,056.16
Child Support: $200
Cash Assistance: $0
Food Stamps: $212
Monthly Income: $1,468.16
Difference: 1468.16 - 1297 = +$171.16*** (171.16/143.5 = Effective Pay of $1.19/hour)
***
A.) There are no child care costs in this scenario
B.) Gas costs for transportation to and from work are not factored in.
C.) Clothing costs for work clothes are not factored in.
D.) Vehicle maintenance not factored in.
Using the calculator, I decided to input monthly dependent care costs of a very cheap $250/month (impossible!) and food stamps went up $112/month as a result. Cash assistance would still be nothing as it is strictly based on gross income.
New Numbers: +171.16 + 112 (Increase to Food Stamps) - 250 = $33.16 or 33.16/143.5 = Effective Pay of $0.23/hour, still doesn't account for costs.
typical liberal ideals. we are all entitled to sit home on our ass and collect govt money, unless someone hands me a job that pays enough to make it worth my while.
the govt money is an entitlement...its something we have coming to us, and if you want me to give it up..you better sweeten the pot enough.
Dont ask me to get another welfare roomate and pool resources......no I need private living quarters. (although hard working people living in expensive big cities constantly have to find a roomate to make ends meet)
If I am making minimum wage....dont expect me to find a roomate and pool resouces...and live a more comfortable life....just let me go on welfare and have my privacy....because with the govt handout I can live by myself till my high paying dream job comes along.
Dont ask me to pool resources with another single mother and watch each others kids as we both work.....no I want my privacy and I want to live on my terms as someone else pays for it.
Dont ask me to make sacrifices....I know i can get a roomate or 2 roomates and we all can have minimum wage jobs and watch each others chuildren, and still stay off welfare....but I am entitled to my privacy....and the only way CAN HAVE MY PRIVACY IS FOR ME NOT TO WORK.....and collect welfare.
Dont ask me to make sacrifices...its the community that must make the sacrifice and have their taxes go to me. I am entitled to it....
Quote: djatcSeems like we are giving out way too much in help if Mission's numbers show the difference between assistance and working a minimum wage job. Most people would just live off the fat if working isn't much improvement of the status quo.
Right, you have to make a good incentive to work. Either cut everyone off food stamps/welfare entirely and let them and their children sink or swim, or make working a McJob a much improved standard of living than the sucking off the gov't teet life. We definitely can't afford the 2nd, so I'm guessing the first way is the only way to eradicate this issue.
Quote: LarryS
typical liberal ideals. we are all entitled to sit home on our ass and collect govt money, unless someone hands me a job that pays enough to make it worth my while.
the govt money is an entitlement...its something we have coming to us, and if you want me to give it up..you better sweeten the pot enough.
I don't know where I said that people are entitled to do that. If I recall correctly, my specifically outlined plan calls for at least one individual out of a couple or for a single individual to actually be required to work in a job that the Government will find for them, if necessary. It's just that the wages are going to be livable is the only difference between that and the way it is now.
And, again, people make the contention that the businesses can't afford to pay more or that higher paid individuals aren't going to want to take the pay cut. The fact is that individuals are taking the pay cut already and the businesses are paying more already by way of taxation. The wages go up for the lower-class and the taxes go down for everyone else, it's very simple.
Quote:Dont ask me to get another welfare roomate and pool resources......no I need private living quarters. (although hard working people living in expensive big cities constantly have to find a roomate to make ends meet)
If I am making minimum wage....dont expect me to find a roomate and pool resouces...and live a more comfortable life....just let me go on welfare and have my privacy....because with the govt handout I can live by myself till my high paying dream job comes along.
I've already addressed this point and you have provided no meaningful counter-argument other than a restatement of your thesis.
To the last bit, not really, because it's all fun and games until one's children are grown up and they stop qualifying for entitlements, but I doubt if everyone necessarily plans that far ahead. In some cases, perhaps they simply get older and live with the children who themselves are on welfare.
