Welfare pays very well

Rose said:
Good for you. That kind of spirit it always admirable.

But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't always work that way - more so in our economy. The college grads barely getting by, the folks lining up at employment offices, the single mother in community college. Their hard work only means something when there're good paying jobs available.
Click to expand...

What solution do you suggest?

That is to get good paying jobs back over here in the USA.
 
Rana said:
I have to disagree, there are many hard working poor, staying poor is not a choice, otherwise, if hard work was the answer many of the rich would be poor and the poor rich.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about the rich though.

If you're making minimum wage, and want to start making more, then more , and then more.
 
Liberty said:
We're not talking about the rich though.

If you're making minimum wage, and want to start making more, then more , and then more.
Click to expand...

You can't make more when corporation are paying less and replacing full time with part time. Not all have the capacity to go into business for themselves and I have seen highly intelligent people fail in building a new business.
 
Liberty said:
All that said, Staying Poor is a choice. If the poor really wanted to move up in income, they could. All they have to do is work hard and make it happen.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but that is total horseshit.

I spent 10 years working HARD for a small radio station in a SMALL market in Colorado, not making a HUGE salary but making a nice tidy sum and not particularly concerned because I loved the area I lived in and wanted to settle down there in my old age.

I was one of the top rated DJ's in town, I had turned down several jobs in larger markets out of loyalty to the company that gave me my start and because of the reasons I mentioned before. WELL lo and behold, on the 10th anniversary of my hiring, the station rewarded that loyalty by FIRING me. They claimed I was making too much money and they couldn't afford to pay me any more.

So forgive me for saying again that working hard is NO GUARANTEE of better pay...sometimes working hard for the boss GETS YOU FIRED.
 
Rana said:
You can't make more when corporation are paying less and replacing full time with part time. Not all have the capacity to go into business for themselves and I have seen highly intelligent people fail in building a new business.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea why corporations are paying less and replacing full time with part time? I thought most of them were moving jobs out of the country to pay less.

I expect, because of Bohnercare, they could be cutting fulltime to part time.

I admit, opportunity here seems to be a lot less today than 30+ years ago. Would you agree, and do you have a solution to it if you do?
 
Liberty said:
Do you have any idea why corporations are paying less and replacing full time with part time? I thought most of them were moving jobs out of the country to pay less.

I expect, because of Bohnercare, they could be cutting fulltime to part time.

I admit, opportunity here seems to be a lot less today than 30+ years ago. Would you agree, and do you have a solution to it if you do?
Click to expand...

It's called Corporate RESPONSIBILITY.

The SCOTUS declared corporations are people...well then it's time for those "people" to be good Corporate "citizens".
 
Liberty said:
What solution do you suggest?

That is to get good paying jobs back over here in the USA.
Click to expand...

Good question. I'd advocate a two-pronged approach:

a.) A jobs program to create an immediate boom in demand.
b.) The (forced, or facilitated) democratization of all firms within our borders. This would retain market efficiency while increasing wages - and decreasing the ability for a small number of people to cause economic disaster - for long term stability.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I am sorry but that is total horseshit.

I spent 10 years working HARD for a small radio station in a SMALL market in Colorado, not making a HUGE salary but making a nice tidy sum and not particularly concerned because I loved the area I lived in and wanted to settle down there in my old age.

I was one of the top rated DJ's in town, I had turned down several jobs in larger markets out of loyalty to the company that gave me my start and because of the reasons I mentioned before. WELL lo and behold, on the 10th anniversary of my hiring, the station rewarded that loyalty by FIRING me. They claimed I was making too much money and they couldn't afford to pay me any more.

So forgive me for saying again that working hard is NO GUARANTEE of better pay...sometimes working hard for the boss GETS YOU FIRED.
Click to expand...

WOW!

Cool job. Sorry to hear you lost it.

I can't disagree with what you said, but my main focus was for someone making minumum wage, and trying to get out of that set income, and increase it over time. I've never done anything I liked, except what I'm doing now. It's always sucked before this job.

I could have come out of high school and stayed with a minumum wage job, but I chose to do something else to try to make more money. The only opportunities I found was self employment. I've said it before, but I found out quickly that no one was going to pay me for what I think I'm worth. I'm not referring to you, but there's still opportunity out there. It may not be what anyone would want, but it's there.

If I had your background, I'd be looking at starting my own radio station, or show, or whatever would be possible. The only problem with that is, the rings you have to jump through to get things going. Most of which are made by gov't.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I am smart enough to know I'm not the one who should decide what the minimum wage should be.

I do think however that we should handcuff the minimum wage to inflation.
Click to expand...

Could be. I couldn't come up with a number myself, as I've always payed people much more than the minimum wage when I ran a business. Otherwise I'd have there problems become mine.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It's called Corporate RESPONSIBILITY.

The SCOTUS declared corporations are people...well then it's time for those "people" to be good Corporate "citizens".
Click to expand...

I've never been a fan of corporations. And I don't personally see any one corporation as a person. I've always looked at corporations as a monopoly, or monopoly want-to-be. Even though many aren't that big.
 
Rose said:
Good question. I'd advocate a two-pronged approach:

a.) A jobs program to create an immediate boom in demand.
b.) The (forced, or facilitated) democratization of all firms within our borders. This would retain market efficiency while increasing wages - and decreasing the ability for a small number of people to cause economic disaster - for long term stability.
Click to expand...

Isn't that more arm twisting on small businesses? Less opportunity for the small entrepreneur capitalist?
 
Liberty said:
Do you have any idea why corporations are paying less and replacing full time with part time? I thought most of them were moving jobs out of the country to pay less.

I expect, because of Bohnercare, they could be cutting fulltime to part time.

I admit, opportunity here seems to be a lot less today than 30+ years ago. Would you agree, and do you have a solution to it if you do?
Click to expand...

The trend of paying less has been happening before The Affordable Care Act and corporations are using it as an excuse for cutting jobs and wages.

My solution, voting for people who do not cater to corporations. I also personally boycott businesses like Walmart. I support companies that support labor.

I think we need to promote the idea of people before profits.
 
Independent said:
Welfare programs pay more than minimum wage in 35 states.

That's according to a new study released this week by the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank. It's an update from its 1995 study that examined the same issues.

Its conclusion this time around, accounting for the changes in the government's 126 separate programs for low-income people, is that government aid can be more than the earnings from a regular, entry-level job. And the pay gap has increased in recent years, the study concludes.

Here are some of its numbers:

Not only do government-assistance programs for the unemployed pay more than minimum wage in 35 states, but they also pay more than a $15-an-hour job, according to the report. Hawaii has the "most generous benefit package," following by the District of Columbia and Massachusetts.

In 11 states, these programs pay more annually than the average teacher after his or her first year on the job. In 39 states, it pays more than a starting salary of a secretary. And the comparisons continue.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/dome...n-pay-more-than-that-entry-level-job-20130820
Click to expand...

Another right wing think tank parroting neocon/teabagger bullshit. Here's a the reality check:


Tanner and Hughes acknowledge that “surveys of welfare recipients consistently show their desire for a job.” They acknowledge that a significant share of those receiving public benefits are working – Walmart employees, for example, famously rely on public assistance to get by, meaning that taxpayers effectively subsidize the Walton family’s vast fortunes. And they note that programs like TANF are time-limited – to a maximum of 60 months except in most cases.

They also acknowledge the central flaw in their conclusion: in real life the “typical” family in their study doesn’t come close to receiving the maximum benefit from every single program for which they’re eligible. But here the authors’ caveat doesn’t go far enough. Due largely to the fact that eligibility requirements have already become harder to overcome, these programs are helping fewer poor families get by. In 2009, around three out of four poor families with kids weren’t getting any TANF benefits. At the height of the economic crash, about 25 percent of those eligible for food stamps weren’t receiving them; during better times, that number hovers around 40 percent. And as the CATO study concedes, six out of seven poor families aren’t getting housing assistance.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/08/21/cato-institute-report-says-poor-americans-have-it-too-good/
 
Taichiliberal said:
Another right wing think tank parroting neocon/teabagger bullshit. Here's a the reality check:


Tanner and Hughes acknowledge that “surveys of welfare recipients consistently show their desire for a job.” They acknowledge that a significant share of those receiving public benefits are working – Walmart employees, for example, famously rely on public assistance to get by, meaning that taxpayers effectively subsidize the Walton family’s vast fortunes. And they note that programs like TANF are time-limited – to a maximum of 60 months except in most cases.

They also acknowledge the central flaw in their conclusion: in real life the “typical” family in their study doesn’t come close to receiving the maximum benefit from every single program for which they’re eligible. But here the authors’ caveat doesn’t go far enough. Due largely to the fact that eligibility requirements have already become harder to overcome, these programs are helping fewer poor families get by. In 2009, around three out of four poor families with kids weren’t getting any TANF benefits. At the height of the economic crash, about 25 percent of those eligible for food stamps weren’t receiving them; during better times, that number hovers around 40 percent. And as the CATO study concedes, six out of seven poor families aren’t getting housing assistance.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/08/21/cato-institute-report-says-poor-americans-have-it-too-good/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reality check. Truth hurts, huh, conservatives?
 
Rana said:
The trend of paying less has been happening before The Affordable Care Act and corporations are using it as an excuse for cutting jobs and wages.

My solution, voting for people who do not cater to corporations. I also personally boycott businesses like Walmart. I support companies that support labor.

I think we need to promote the idea of people before profits.
Click to expand...

I here you, but I do think that businesses, with over 50 employees, will cut hours and/or lay people off to avoid Boehnercare penalties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top