D.T.W.A.

[PLAYER57832]

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

Sounds approximately correct.

[john9blue]

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

hey woody, it's not that simple bro... in fact, i heard that for government to give to someone, it has to take away from someone else, because that's how government (and the physical laws of the universe for that matter) work. so in order to help bad people, you would punish other (good) people? correct me if i'm wrong here.

Sounds approximately correct.

nah, not really.

[Phatscotty]

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

we are able to find a better way. Nobody has to be hurt by the government. If someone hurts themself, it isn't everyone else's mess.

We are trying to stay free here, aren't we?

[Woodruff]

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

hey woody, it's not that simple bro...

Well of COURSE it's not that simple...nothing ever is. I didn't say it was the end-all be-all. But it does seem like a pretty appropriate guideline to me.

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

we are able to find a better way. Nobody has to be hurt by the government. If someone hurts themself, it isn't everyone else's mess.
We are trying to stay free here, aren't we?

This thread is the perfect example that your statements are false. You claim that nobody has to be hurt by the government, and yet you want to take away MORE taxpayer money to punish these people...which simultaneously hurts good people.

[Phatscotty]

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

hey woody, it's not that simple bro...

Well of COURSE it's not that simple...nothing ever is. I didn't say it was the end-all be-all. But it does seem like a pretty appropriate guideline to me.

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

we are able to find a better way. Nobody has to be hurt by the government. If someone hurts themself, it isn't everyone else's mess.
We are trying to stay free here, aren't we?

This thread is the perfect example that your statements are false. You claim that nobody has to be hurt by the government, and yet you want to take away MORE taxpayer money to punish these people...which simultaneously hurts good people.

it will pay for itself, and that is a promise.

[Woodruff]

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

hey woody, it's not that simple bro...

Well of COURSE it's not that simple...nothing ever is. I didn't say it was the end-all be-all. But it does seem like a pretty appropriate guideline to me.

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.

we are able to find a better way. Nobody has to be hurt by the government. If someone hurts themself, it isn't everyone else's mess.
We are trying to stay free here, aren't we?

This thread is the perfect example that your statements are false. You claim that nobody has to be hurt by the government, and yet you want to take away MORE taxpayer money to punish these people...which simultaneously hurts good people.

it will pay for itself, and that is a promise.

I don't really understand why you believe that. I personally believe it will be a massive funding sinkhole. In fact, I think it's unavoidable.

[Phatscotty]

we are talking about 14 million dollars..right?

[Woodruff]

we are talking about 14 million dollars..right?

Do you believe there are 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs? I certainly don't.

[Phatscotty]

we are talking about 14 million dollars..right?

Do you believe there are 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs? I certainly don't.

nooooooooooo

the 14 million it will cost for the urine tests. isnt that what you were saying would be the impetus for the increase on gov't spending?

[Night Strike]

So minimum wage going up is bad. The government should not be in the business of forcing employers to ensure that people are making a living wage. It is in the hands of the person to do what they can to increase their earning power. Schooling, though important, isn't the be all end all factor. I graduated college, but couldn't find work in my field. I took a minimum wage job (back when it was $6.00/hour), worked hard, improved myself, learned everything I could and worked my way up. I bought the business 15 years later. Just seems to me people think are too good for a minimum wage job and want everything handed to them.

You didn't work hard, you just caught a lucky break. Since you're just lucky, you must pay your employees whatever the rate they want while turning the rest of your profit over to the government in the form of taxes. If you have a bad week or month, it doesn't matter if you are suddenly earning less than the government's minimum wage, you still owe the same amount in pay to the government and cannot fire your employees. When their costs go up due to inflation, you have to pay them more while taking less for yourself. And oh yeah, you can't raise your prices because that's not fair to your customers.

Are you sure you want to stay in your business?

Those kinds of things are exactly what Player and Democrats expect of business owners. They believe that all the business owners are just lucky snobs who feed off their minimum wage workers. They don't do anything of benefit to society because all they do is exploit other people and the environment. It's pretty sad how our free society has turned into one that values the government over freedom.

[radiojake]

So minimum wage going up is bad. The government should not be in the business of forcing employers to ensure that people are making a living wage. It is in the hands of the person to do what they can to increase their earning power. Schooling, though important, isn't the be all end all factor. I graduated college, but couldn't find work in my field. I took a minimum wage job (back when it was $6.00/hour), worked hard, improved myself, learned everything I could and worked my way up. I bought the business 15 years later. Just seems to me people think are too good for a minimum wage job and want everything handed to them.

You didn't work hard, you just caught a lucky break. Since you're just lucky, you must pay your employees whatever the rate they want while turning the rest of your profit over to the government in the form of taxes. If you have a bad week or month, it doesn't matter if you are suddenly earning less than the government's minimum wage, you still owe the same amount in pay to the government and cannot fire your employees. When their costs go up due to inflation, you have to pay them more while taking less for yourself. And oh yeah, you can't raise your prices because that's not fair to your customers.

Are you sure you want to stay in your business?

Those kinds of things are exactly what Player and Democrats expect of business owners. They believe that all the business owners are just lucky snobs who feed off their minimum wage workers. They don't do anything of benefit to society because all they do is exploit other people and the environment. It's pretty sad how our free society has turned into one that values the government over freedom.

It´s funny how you´ve equated freedom with the ability to participate in the market economy, as if it´s some kind of magical level playing field, where if you work hard, you are bound to reap the rewards of what you sow.

I do not understand how you could compare having to work 40 hours a week producing crap shit working in a job that you hate with any semblence of ´freedom´- This entire system is built to exploit the poorest - If you can´t see it, it´s probably because you are on the side profiting from the exploitation (or you have been easily seduced by dominant hegemony and believe its lies)

[natty dread]

we are talking about 14 million dollars..right?

Do you believe there are 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs? I certainly don't.

nooooooooooo

the 14 million it will cost for the urine tests. isnt that what you were saying would be the impetus for the increase on gov't spending?

Wooooosh.

If the drug tests cost 14 million, then there would have to be at least 14 million worth of people on welfare who abuse drugs, for this drug testing to break even financially. Do you or do you not believe that to be the case?

Simple math!

Drug testing costs X
Drug testing saves Y where
Y = the amount of 1 welfare check times the amount of people getting welfare who use drugs

IF X > Y THEN Drug testing welfare recipients costs more money than it saves.

In this case, X = 14 million. Do you believe Y to be more, or not?

[keiths31]

So minimum wage going up is bad. The government should not be in the business of forcing employers to ensure that people are making a living wage. It is in the hands of the person to do what they can to increase their earning power. Schooling, though important, isn't the be all end all factor. I graduated college, but couldn't find work in my field. I took a minimum wage job (back when it was $6.00/hour), worked hard, improved myself, learned everything I could and worked my way up. I bought the business 15 years later. Just seems to me people think are too good for a minimum wage job and want everything handed to them.

You didn't work hard, you just caught a lucky break. Since you're just lucky, you must pay your employees whatever the rate they want while turning the rest of your profit over to the government in the form of taxes. If you have a bad week or month, it doesn't matter if you are suddenly earning less than the government's minimum wage, you still owe the same amount in pay to the government and cannot fire your employees. When their costs go up due to inflation, you have to pay them more while taking less for yourself. And oh yeah, you can't raise your prices because that's not fair to your customers.

Are you sure you want to stay in your business?

Those kinds of things are exactly what Player and Democrats expect of business owners. They believe that all the business owners are just lucky snobs who feed off their minimum wage workers. They don't do anything of benefit to society because all they do is exploit other people and the environment. It's pretty sad how our free society has turned into one that values the government over freedom.

I am anything but a lucky snob...I work hard and provide employment to a lot of people. I'm not an "evil, faceless corporation". And yes I do want to stay in business. What others think I could care less. In spite of my staff making minimum wage or a couple of dollars above, they are very loyal and enjoy working for me. Sometimes employment is more about then just how much you make per hour. If one judges their employment solely based on that measure, they will never be happy. Provide a great work environment for them, praise them when they do a great job and provide small appreciation bonuses and they will work hard for you. I am far from exploiting my staff...

[PLAYER57832]

You didn't work hard, you just caught a lucky break. Since you're just lucky, you must pay your employees whatever the rate they want while turning the rest of your profit over to the government in the form of taxes. If you have a bad week or month, it doesn't matter if you are suddenly earning less than the government's minimum wage, you still owe the same amount in pay to the government and cannot fire your employees. When their costs go up due to inflation, you have to pay them more while taking less for yourself. And oh yeah, you can't raise your prices because that's not fair to your customers.

Are you sure you want to stay in your business?

Those kinds of things are exactly what Player and Democrats expect of business owners. They believe that all the business owners are just lucky snobs who feed off their minimum wage workers. They don't do anything of benefit to society because all they do is exploit other people and the environment. It's pretty sad how our free society has turned into one that values the government over freedom.

If you think I and the Democratic party think alike on much of anything, you are not reading very well.

No, this is definitely not true of all businesses. It IS true of some. And, at least have of your explanation is wrong. Taxes are based on your earnings. So, if you have a bad week, you do not pay the same taxes. You pay utilities, property taxes, etc, but not income taxes... and that was the discussion here. Per property taxes, many big businesses, once again, get great tax breaks which mean everyone else, including homeowners and small businesses have to pay more. Property taxes are, after all, based on the cost of actually maintaining things, particularly running schools. So,if one person gets a break it gets passed on to someone else.

The theory, which keith explained well, is that a business will hire people who will, in turn be paying taxes and supporting the economy. BUT, minimum wage workers, and even those making a great deal more, do NOT pay more in taxes than they withdraw in government services. So, if the tax breaks and so forth are going to support a business that primarily offers minimum wage or a couple of dollars above that, then that business is adding to the overall tax burden, not subtracting from it.

Yet, you want to dismiss that and blame the ones who are working and not making enough to get by. That is plain wrong. PERIOD. Unless you yourself are just barely getting by, then you can afford to pay more. And I am not joking. I grew up on plenty of farms where, sometimes the owners did make less than some of the workers. (not screw-ups, but those who knew what they were doing, just costs and prices went awry for a time) That IS part of doing business. But, on the other hand, when prosperity hit, it was not the workers who got to buy new cars, furniture and take vacations to Hawaii. As long as the workers were getting a decent wage (and on farms, that can be trickier to assess because housing and free food "bonuses", etc are often part of the pay), then there was nothing wrong. Also agriculture is something of an exception. Few people want to work in the industry. And, because it is an absolutely vital industry to the country, and becuase people plain do not want to pay true market costs, do not want food prices subjected to the same vagaries of anything else, it is always handled differently from other industries (not always sensibly.. many subsidies are plain stupid, but anyway...).

Anyway, the botton line is that you pay your workers FIRST, before you take a profit. Sometimes owners take a hit, sometimes they make it big. If you are truly in a very lean year and truly are not doing well, most workers are willing to take a hit for a time, BUT then there is the expectation that they will get raises and bonuses to make up for the hits when times get better. Sadly, far too many business owners nowadays are more than happy to sing the song of poverty, but then forget the second part.. and I mean particularly the BIG businesses, where some coroporate head (or more likely a lower level manager) in a remote town is making the decisions, someone who never has to face the workers taking the pinch.

AND, not that the cost of living will vary depending on where you are. That is the real problem with a national minimum wage. However, when a single person cannot "make it", even living in my small town where you can buy a NICE house for 30K (much lower if you look at foreclosures and have some sense), where food prices are relatively low, where most people even have land for gardens and where we have full clothing pantries (as well as garage sales with decent clothes and goods). Then there is a problem at the national level!

And, sometimes the real answer is to move or just go out of business OR, at least to admit that you are where you are because of a good deal of taxpayer help.

That last is my real point. Sometimes taxpayer help is warranted, particularly helping critical businessesduring lean times that have nothing to do with business irresponsibility.

[keiths31]

Anyway, the botton line is that you pay your workers FIRST, before you take a profit. Sometimes owners take a hit, sometimes they make it big. If you are truly in a very lean year and truly are not doing well, most workers are willing to take a hit for a time, BUT then there is the expectation that they will get raises and bonuses to make up for the hits when times get better. Sadly, far too many business owners nowadays are more than happy to sing the song of poverty, but then forget the second part.. and I mean particularly the BIG businesses, where some coroporate head (or more likely a lower level manager) in a remote town is making the decisions, someone who never has to face the workers taking the pinch.

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read in these forums and I have read a lot of crap. No worker anywhere is willing to take less money when times are tough. That is total BS. I cannot believe that you truly believe that.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, the botton line is that you pay your workers FIRST, before you take a profit. Sometimes owners take a hit, sometimes they make it big. If you are truly in a very lean year and truly are not doing well, most workers are willing to take a hit for a time, BUT then there is the expectation that they will get raises and bonuses to make up for the hits when times get better. Sadly, far too many business owners nowadays are more than happy to sing the song of poverty, but then forget the second part.. and I mean particularly the BIG businesses, where some coroporate head (or more likely a lower level manager) in a remote town is making the decisions, someone who never has to face the workers taking the pinch.

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read in these forums and I have read a lot of crap. No worker anywhere is willing to take less money when times are tough. That is total BS. I cannot believe that you truly believe that.

It is no more crap than saying that many employers abuse employees, could care less about giving them more than the absolute cheapest wage they can, while feeling just find keeping every other penny for themselves.

I don't just believe it, I KNOW it is true. Not always, of course not! Workers are not stupid. If they know that taking a hit will truly help the company to survive, they will do it...and there are many examples of just that, sometimes through unions, more often in non-union plants. BUT, the thing is too many times workers do that and just get burned in return. Also, I don't care who you are, if you can go and get a better paying job under better conditions somewhere else, you will. In good times, that moves to boost wages in some areas, but not all.

But, here is the thing. You seem to think, by your words, that it is perfectly OK for employers to keep whatever they want, to esssentially be greedy.. and if the employees don't like it, tough! Well, employees often have to take what they are offered, but that does NOT mean those wages are "good". The fact that you are able to hire someone for a job is a reflection of the overall economy. This is precisely why minimum wages become so very important in the worst of times, not just the best of times.

You keep skipping by the basic fact I have stated over and over and over again. If you are not paying someone enough to live upon,t hen you are either saying they have no right to live OR you are expecting them to mooch off others. Saying "we will leave that to private organizations" is a stupid answer. That money still comes off of others. Most people working at very low wages wind up with both private and public assistance, anyway. Whether your business can "afford" to pay more or not is irrelevant. I am saying you have no right to demand that we taxpayers subsidize your workers, and if you are not paying them a living wage, then that is exactly what you do... ask others to subsidize your workers.

If you cannot, then you cannot afford to be in business. Plain and simply. You don't get to just decide to pay less for timber because you don't like the price. You can certainly decide to pay more for better quality, better service, etc when it makes sense, but you cannot go more cheaply. The same does or should apply to wages. The most basic wage that ought to be allowes is what it takes for someone to support themselves frugally.

As per the other, workers DO take cuts. I am not suggesting they jump for joy, but when its required, i have seen more than a few groups vote to take lower wages rather than see workers laid off, just as an example. The problem is, of late, too many companies go ahead and take the cuts, then turn around and close plants or ship them overseas anyway (technically, they are reorganizing under a different organization..etc, but it amounts to the same thing). Workers take hits, but get nothing in return... except to see the higher ups getting bonuses and raises because they made their operations "efficient". Folks can only see that happen so many times before they start getting very angry. Think I am lying or don't know of what I am speaking? I am talking about exactly what has happened in plant after plant in my area. And I know the situation is not much different elsewhere.

Granted, you are not running a big company. I doubt you perpetuate the above kind of abuse. What I see happening from small employers is often much more subtle, but just as damaging, if not more.

What actually happens is that when things start to get really tight, many employers simply refuse to pay the base wage, and then decide its OK to hire illegals, cut corners in various ways (demand more overtime, perhaps "forgetting" to tally all the hours correctly -- always a "clerical error, you understand.. so sorry... etc, etc.) I am not suggesting you are doing that yourself, but you have to compete with people who do. Unless there are rules and limits in place, then the honest businesspeople are at a disadvantage.

And... at some point, what I said above is true. If you keep having to cut corners to get by in a business, then its time to get out of that business. You should only look to the government to bail you out, to subsidize you or your workers in a very few situations.. you are in a critical industry that is being out-competed overseas (tarriffs, subsidies, etc help there, but have to be limited), in the case of a disaster (again, part of just rebuilding, keeping an economy going in an area), and a few other cases. But to think its OK to pay a low wage just because people are willing to take that wage and ignore the fact that the only reason, the primary reason they are willing to take that wage is that the people can qualify for subsidies.. that is lying to yourself.

[Woodruff]

we are talking about 14 million dollars..right?

Do you believe there are 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs? I certainly don't.

nooooooooooo

the 14 million it will cost for the urine tests. isnt that what you were saying would be the impetus for the increase on gov't spending?

Right...and so in order for this to save any money, there will have to be more than 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs. I don't at all believe that is the case, therefore I believe this will be a massive funding sinkhole and NOT the money-savings you seem to believe it will be.

[Woodruff]

So minimum wage going up is bad. The government should not be in the business of forcing employers to ensure that people are making a living wage. It is in the hands of the person to do what they can to increase their earning power. Schooling, though important, isn't the be all end all factor. I graduated college, but couldn't find work in my field. I took a minimum wage job (back when it was $6.00/hour), worked hard, improved myself, learned everything I could and worked my way up. I bought the business 15 years later. Just seems to me people think are too good for a minimum wage job and want everything handed to them.

You didn't work hard, you just caught a lucky break. Since you're just lucky, you must pay your employees whatever the rate they want while turning the rest of your profit over to the government in the form of taxes. If you have a bad week or month, it doesn't matter if you are suddenly earning less than the government's minimum wage, you still owe the same amount in pay to the government and cannot fire your employees. When their costs go up due to inflation, you have to pay them more while taking less for yourself. And oh yeah, you can't raise your prices because that's not fair to your customers.

Are you sure you want to stay in your business?

Those kinds of things are exactly what Player and Democrats expect of business owners. They believe that all the business owners are just lucky snobs who feed off their minimum wage workers. They don't do anything of benefit to society because all they do is exploit other people and the environment.

No they don't. Where do you get your ideas, Night Strike? Seriously.

It's pretty sad how our free society has turned into one that values the government over freedom.

You mean like the freedom to use drugs that are illegal even though others aren't harmed by them? Or were you referring to something else?

[Woodruff]

Anyway, the botton line is that you pay your workers FIRST, before you take a profit. Sometimes owners take a hit, sometimes they make it big. If you are truly in a very lean year and truly are not doing well, most workers are willing to take a hit for a time, BUT then there is the expectation that they will get raises and bonuses to make up for the hits when times get better. Sadly, far too many business owners nowadays are more than happy to sing the song of poverty, but then forget the second part.. and I mean particularly the BIG businesses, where some coroporate head (or more likely a lower level manager) in a remote town is making the decisions, someone who never has to face the workers taking the pinch.

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read in these forums and I have read a lot of crap. No worker anywhere is willing to take less money when times are tough. That is total BS. I cannot believe that you truly believe that.

I wouldn't call it "total BS", but it is by and large BS, yes. I have seen a very VERY VERY few instances where workers were willing to take a significant but temporary pay cut in order to keep a business afloat (small business in every case that I can recall) for the short term, rather than losing a job they greatly enjoyed because either firings were going to take place or it was going to go away entirely. But by and large, worker eyesight is no better than corporate eyesight in that it is fixed squarely on the short-term, what-can-you-do-for-me-now. It's unfortunate, but true.

[PLAYER57832]

we are talking about 14 million dollars..right?

Do you believe there are 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs? I certainly don't.

nooooooooooo

the 14 million it will cost for the urine tests. isnt that what you were saying would be the impetus for the increase on gov't spending?

Right...and so in order for this to save any money, there will have to be more than 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs. I don't at all believe that is the case, therefore I believe this will be a massive funding sinkhole and NOT the money-savings you seem to believe it will be.

since the figures I could find say there were 2 Million on welfare in the entire country for 2005 it is highly doubtful that there are 14 million welfare recipients on drugs in Florida


and, as noted in another thread.. THIS:
source newsvine
from link: http://gabby3239.newsvine.com/_news/201 ... -medicaid-

The Republicans and Tea Baggers favorite chant is how much they are against socialism and big government. And they love to be against any federal Program regardless to who the program helps or how much good the particular program does.

Yet today after 8 consecutive years of Republican social program cutting, economy ruining tax cuts, war mongering and profiteering our nation is gripped by the worse unemployment in nearly 60 years and we have more people on welfare and food assistance than we have had in at least the last 40 years.

Many of the states with the worst unemployment situations and where peoples unemployment benefits are low or have run out are in the rural south, states like Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Arkansas, and those are the very states that are most in need of the cash assistance, food stamps, medical and housing assistance provided by the Federal government yet they tend to vote Republican year after year.

disclaimer.. I have not been able to verify this information, but it sounds correct.

[PLAYER57832]

I wouldn't call it "total BS", but it is by and large BS, yes. I have seen a very VERY VERY few instances where workers were willing to take a significant but temporary pay cut in order to keep a business afloat (small business in every case that I can recall) for the short term, rather than losing a job they greatly enjoyed because either firings were going to take place or it was going to go away entirely. But by and large, worker eyesight is no better than corporate eyesight in that it is fixed squarely on the short-term, what-can-you-do-for-me-now. It's unfortunate, but true.

It depends a lot on the overall employment picture.. how easy employees feel it will be to get another job versus the conditions at the place they are working. A lot depends on whether workers feel they are "part of' the company or simply a living cog in the machinery, fully replaceable. If you treat and view people like nothing more that living machines, then why would anyone expect them to act as if they were more?

I had two points, though. One, that while it doesn't always happen (never said that it did), it does happen sometimes.

Also, why is it that employees who want to have a basic, living wage are appallingly greedy, but employers who feel they should pay for all their kids' private tuitions, a fancy house, retirement funds and nice vacations before worrying about worker needs are not?

How is it that a worker who puts in 40 hours at any job, is "lazy" if they cannot pay for their own house and food,e tc, but the employer that hires them for that low wage is just being a good businessperson? How is it that it is the person working 40 hours who is somehow to blame for draining the economy and not the business hiring the worker for such a low wage?

[PLAYER57832]

One thing I am not sure Phattscotty, etc are truly clear on is that welfare (or AFDC) only refers to the cash assistance portion. The limits for those who qualify are very, very low (In PA, you have to have less than $150).

When you expand it to food stamps,e tc the number grow a LOT. Those are the programs that include a good many of the working poor..

here is a nice article on this:
source: http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2010/01 ... tamps.html
(much of information references a New York Times article)

pop quiz: How many Americans are on food stamps? How many children in the United States are on food stamps? For how many people in the United States are food stamps their only means of regular financial support?

An article from Saturday’s New York Times gives the surprising (to me, at least) answers: One in eight Americans rely on food stamps; one in four children in the United States rely on food stamps; one in 50 Americans live on nothing but food stamps.

Here are some snippets from the article, which is based on a nationwide study, but focuses on Florida. The Republican congressman’s comment that providing food stamps to people is the equivalent of “paying people to sit around and not work.” What jobs does he suggest they sign up for, I’m wondering?


About six million Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income, according to an analysis of state data collected by The New York Times. In declarations that states verify and the federal government audits, they described themselves as unemployed and receiving no cash aid—no welfare, no unemployment insurance, and no pensions, child support or disability pay.

Their numbers were rising before the recession as tougher welfare laws made it harder for poor people to get cash aid, but they have soared by about 50 percent over the past two years. About one in 50 Americans now lives in a household with a reported income that consists of nothing but a food-stamp card.

…

The surge in this precarious way of life has been so swift that few policy makers have noticed. But it attests to the growing role of food stamps within the safety net. One in eight Americans now receives food stamps, including one in four children.

…

Florida officials have done a better job than most in monitoring the rise of people with no cash income. They say the access to food stamps shows the safety net is working.

“The program is doing what it was designed to do: help very needy people get through a very difficult time,” said Don Winstead, deputy secretary for the Department of Children and Families. “But for this program they would be in even more dire straits.”

But others say the lack of cash support shows the safety net is torn. The main cash welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, has scarcely expanded during the recession; the rolls are still down about 75 percent from their 1990s peak. A different program, unemployment insurance, has rapidly grown, but still omits nearly half the unemployed. Food stamps, easier to get, have become the safety net of last resort.

“The food-stamp program is being asked to do too much,” said James Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, a Washington advocacy group. “People need income support.”

Food stamps, officially the called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, have taken on a greater role in the safety net for several reasons. Since the benefit buys only food, it draws less suspicion of abuse than cash aid and more political support. And the federal government pays for the whole benefit, giving states reason to maximize enrollment. States typically share in other programs’ costs.

The Times collected income data on food-stamp recipients in 31 states, which account for about 60 percent of the national caseload. On average, 18 percent listed cash income of zero in their most recent monthly filings. Projected over the entire caseload, that suggests six million people in households with no income. About 1.2 million are children.

The numbers have nearly tripled in Nevada over the past two years, doubled in Florida and New York, and grown nearly 90 percent in Minnesota and Utah. In Wayne County, Mich., which includes Detroit, one of every 25 residents reports an income of only food stamps. In Yakima County, Wash., the figure is about one of every 17.

Experts caution that these numbers are estimates. Recipients typically report a small rise in earnings just once every six months, so some people listed as jobless may have recently found some work. New York officials say their numbers include some households with earnings from illegal immigrants, who cannot get food stamps but sometimes live with relatives who do.

Still, there is little doubt that millions of people are relying on incomes of food stamps alone, and their numbers are rapidly growing. “This is a reflection of the hardship that a lot of people in our state are facing; I think that is without question,” said Mr. Winstead, the Florida official.

With their condition mostly overlooked, there is little data on how long these households go without cash incomes or what other resources they have. But they appear an eclectic lot. Florida data shows the population about evenly split between families with children and households with just adults, with the latter group growing fastest during the recession. They are racially mixed as well—about 42 percent white, 32 percent black, and 22 percent Latino—with the growth fastest among whites during the recession.

The expansion of the food-stamp program, which will spend more than $60 billion this year, has so far enjoyed bipartisan support. But it does have conservative critics who worry about the costs and the rise in dependency.

“This is craziness,” said Representative John Linder, a Georgia Republican who is the ranking minority member of a House panel on welfare policy. “We’re at risk of creating an entire class of people, a subset of people, just comfortable getting by living off the government.”

Mr. Linder added: “You don’t improve the economy by paying people to sit around and not work. You improve the economy by lowering taxes” so small businesses will create more jobs.

With nearly 15,000 people in Lee County, Fla., reporting no income but food stamps, the Fort Myers area is a laboratory of inventive survival. When Rhonda Navarro, a cancer patient with a young son, lost running water, she ran a hose from an outdoor spigot that was still working into the shower stall. Mr. Britton, the jobless parking lot painter, sold his blood.

[keiths31]

Anyway, the botton line is that you pay your workers FIRST, before you take a profit. Sometimes owners take a hit, sometimes they make it big. If you are truly in a very lean year and truly are not doing well, most workers are willing to take a hit for a time, BUT then there is the expectation that they will get raises and bonuses to make up for the hits when times get better. Sadly, far too many business owners nowadays are more than happy to sing the song of poverty, but then forget the second part.. and I mean particularly the BIG businesses, where some coroporate head (or more likely a lower level manager) in a remote town is making the decisions, someone who never has to face the workers taking the pinch.

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read in these forums and I have read a lot of crap. No worker anywhere is willing to take less money when times are tough. That is total BS. I cannot believe that you truly believe that.

It is no more crap than saying that many employers abuse employees, could care less about giving them more than the absolute cheapest wage they can, while feeling just find keeping every other penny for themselves.

I don't just believe it, I KNOW it is true. Not always, of course not! Workers are not stupid. If they know that taking a hit will truly help the company to survive, they will do it...and there are many examples of just that, sometimes through unions, more often in non-union plants. BUT, the thing is too many times workers do that and just get burned in return. Also, I don't care who you are, if you can go and get a better paying job under better conditions somewhere else, you will. In good times, that moves to boost wages in some areas, but not all.

But, here is the thing. You seem to think, by your words, that it is perfectly OK for employers to keep whatever they want, to esssentially be greedy.. and if the employees don't like it, tough! Well, employees often have to take what they are offered, but that does NOT mean those wages are "good". The fact that you are able to hire someone for a job is a reflection of the overall economy. This is precisely why minimum wages become so very important in the worst of times, not just the best of times.

You keep skipping by the basic fact I have stated over and over and over again. If you are not paying someone enough to live upon,t hen you are either saying they have no right to live OR you are expecting them to mooch off others. Saying "we will leave that to private organizations" is a stupid answer. That money still comes off of others. Most people working at very low wages wind up with both private and public assistance, anyway. Whether your business can "afford" to pay more or not is irrelevant. I am saying you have no right to demand that we taxpayers subsidize your workers, and if you are not paying them a living wage, then that is exactly what you do... ask others to subsidize your workers.

If you cannot, then you cannot afford to be in business. Plain and simply. You don't get to just decide to pay less for timber because you don't like the price. You can certainly decide to pay more for better quality, better service, etc when it makes sense, but you cannot go more cheaply. The same does or should apply to wages. The most basic wage that ought to be allowes is what it takes for someone to support themselves frugally.

As per the other, workers DO take cuts. I am not suggesting they jump for joy, but when its required, i have seen more than a few groups vote to take lower wages rather than see workers laid off, just as an example. The problem is, of late, too many companies go ahead and take the cuts, then turn around and close plants or ship them overseas anyway (technically, they are reorganizing under a different organization..etc, but it amounts to the same thing). Workers take hits, but get nothing in return... except to see the higher ups getting bonuses and raises because they made their operations "efficient". Folks can only see that happen so many times before they start getting very angry. Think I am lying or don't know of what I am speaking? I am talking about exactly what has happened in plant after plant in my area. And I know the situation is not much different elsewhere.

Granted, you are not running a big company. I doubt you perpetuate the above kind of abuse. What I see happening from small employers is often much more subtle, but just as damaging, if not more.

What actually happens is that when things start to get really tight, many employers simply refuse to pay the base wage, and then decide its OK to hire illegals, cut corners in various ways (demand more overtime, perhaps "forgetting" to tally all the hours correctly -- always a "clerical error, you understand.. so sorry... etc, etc.) I am not suggesting you are doing that yourself, but you have to compete with people who do. Unless there are rules and limits in place, then the honest businesspeople are at a disadvantage.

And... at some point, what I said above is true. If you keep having to cut corners to get by in a business, then its time to get out of that business. You should only look to the government to bail you out, to subsidize you or your workers in a very few situations.. you are in a critical industry that is being out-competed overseas (tarriffs, subsidies, etc help there, but have to be limited), in the case of a disaster (again, part of just rebuilding, keeping an economy going in an area), and a few other cases. But to think its OK to pay a low wage just because people are willing to take that wage and ignore the fact that the only reason, the primary reason they are willing to take that wage is that the people can qualify for subsidies.. that is lying to yourself.

1. I live in Northern Ontario where lumber and grain elevator jobs were once abundant. When times were good, the unions always went on strike demanding a bigger piece of the pie. That is their right. But they did it so many times that when the market took a big down turn and the companies were having a hard time, they refused a pay cut. So the companies left town. When the companies announced they were leaving, the workers didn't understand why. Now there are mothballed mills everywhere and grain elevators sitting idle or being torn down. These jobs will never come back. I am glad that my city has moved away from the blue collar trade job sector and more toward the white collar educational job sector.

2. You say that employers are greedy? Employees are just as greedy wanting more pay for less work. They want to work when they wnt to work, not when they are needed to work. Don't make the person working come off as innocent and the victim. Employees (not all) will do as little work as possible...I don't just believe it, I KNOW it.

3. I never used any of my words to say it is okay for business owners to be greedy. There is nothing wrong with business owners to get a return on their investment. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business. No business means no jobs. No jobs is worse than having jobs that pay minimum wage.

4. Thanks for listing a bunch of "abuse" scenarios and saying that you "doubt" I am that kind of employer. Glad you are able to form an opinion about how I run my businesses based on my opinion of minimum wage. It seems to me that the vast majority of employers are good places to work. You like to paint them all as bad with one large brush because it is easier that way and makes for some good chest pounding.

5. I don't know what minimum wage is where ever you are from, but in my province it is $10.25/hour. That is quite a good wage. If someone working 40 hours a week is getting that, they are are not on welfare and can afford to live on their own. I just don't think that...I KNOW that as someone who lived off minimum wage when I was entering the workforce when the minimum wage was $6.00/hour.

6. You sure seem to be an expert on owning a business and knowing the ins and outs. How many businesses do you run? Or do you just like to get info off Google, form an opinion and pretend to be an expert?

[PLAYER57832]

1. I live in Northern Ontario

Which, has a very different system than we do here. In particular, you have universal healthcare. That, alone, makes a pretty big difference in a US worker's paycheck.

A lot of what I said doesn't apply, but I did make the parameters clear. The key is IF the wages are enough for someone to live upon. In Ontario, they are. In most of the US, they are not. (some areas have a higher minimum wage).

where lumber and grain elevator jobs were once abundant. When times were good, the unions always went on strike demanding a bigger piece of the pie. That is their right. But they did it so many times that when the market took a big down turn and the companies were having a hard time, they refused a pay cut. So the companies left town. When the companies announced they were leaving, the workers didn't understand why. Now there are mothballed mills everywhere and grain elevators sitting idle or being torn down. These jobs will never come back. I am glad that my city has moved away from the blue collar trade job sector and more toward the white collar educational job sector.

The demise of timber and grain in Ontario had to do with a lot of things besides cost of wages. Those are are 2 industries I happen to know something about. (fishing, too).

2. You say that employers are greedy? Employees are just as greedy wanting more pay for less work. They want to work when they wnt to work, not when they are needed to work. Don't make the person working come off as innocent and the victim. Employees (not all) will do as little work as possible...I don't just believe it, I KNOW it.

Employees are human. I never said otherwise. Even so, if someone is worth hiring, then they are worth paying enough for them to live upon. Simple. How much that requires is a different issue, Except that the US minimum wage doesn't cover it at all.

The minimum cost to live is or should be the minimum cost of labor. If people warrant being paid more, and you can afford it.. that much is up to you. I am saying that to pay less than it takes a person to live is not OK. And, I specifically did not make any reference to exact numbers other than the US minimum wage.

3. I never used any of my words to say it is okay for business owners to be greedy. There is nothing wrong with business owners to get a return on their investment. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business. No business means no jobs. No jobs is worse than having jobs that pay minimum wage..

The first part is correct, IF you are paying your bills first.

The second is largely wrong, and also besides the point. If you are paying people so little that they have to get government subsidies to get by, then the net tax impact is negative. Add in that many times companies (more large companies than small businesses) often get real estate and local tax breaks and it winds up that taxpayers often have to pay more thanks to the influx of jobs than they otherwise would. It gets disguised because people come from different areas and because people who get welfare, etc do buy groceries, etc. Those things help support the economy whether the person is working for a good wage or not.

4. Thanks for listing a bunch of "abuse" scenarios and saying that you "doubt" I am that kind of employer. Glad you are able to form an opinion about how I run my businesses based on my opinion of minimum wage.

LOL
You are correct I don't have enough information, but
I just believe in giving people the benefit of doubt. For this conversation it hurts nothing for me to assume you are a nice enough guy. If you aren't.. that is for you to know.

It seems to me that the vast majority of employers are good places to work. You like to paint them all as bad with one large brush because it is easier that way and makes for some good chest pounding. .

Again, you are making the assumptions or simply not reading closely enough, perhaps because you already have in your mind that I am liberal and therefore know nothing of business, wages, etc.?

Anyway, I live in a heavily blue collar area that has seen more than a few plant closures, shrinkages, etc. I have also lived in other areas with different types of industries. What I am talking about is what has happened here. And I know and said that its not what happens everywhere.

Laws, though, and rules are mostly for the lowest denominator. We have worker protection laws because some employers would not follow them otherwise. Are they needed for every business? No, most probably would do what is safe anyway, but we still need the rules.

5. I don't know what minimum wage is where ever you are from, but in my province it is $10.25/hour. That is quite a good wage. If someone working 40 hours a week is getting that, they are are not on welfare and can afford to live on their own. I just don't think that...I KNOW that as someone who lived off minimum wage when I was entering the workforce when the minimum wage was $6.00/hour..

The first part is true, for Ontario. It is not true here. The second is just plain wrong. I won't say what the minimum wage was when I began working, but it wasn't any $6.00 an hour! I lived quite fine. Now, however, and for anyone with kids , the current, albiet higher, minimum wage is just not enough.

let me give you some figures:

Minimum monthly rent (IF you can find it open!) is around $450, for a studio or smaller one bedroom. More likely is that you will wind up paying $550 or more for a rundown place that quite literally is not necessarily even safe to live in (and I exaggerate not! my husband is fire cheif, he regularly responds to carbon monoxide incidents where kids are present in an unrepaired apartment by the same few landowners, we just had a major fire with a fatality due to an electric problem ..etc.). Note: I live in a depressed, rural area where costs are much lower than, say in Pittsburgh. Go to a colelge town and tihngs will be even worse.

Gas heating begins at around $100 a month, but more often is $150-$200. Electric is higher.
Base electric (just for lights and such) is $50 a month.
Water/Sewer/garbage pickup (all together here) are $100 minimum.
Total so far (minimums): $700

Someone making $7.25 working fulltime makes $290 a week. That means $1160 most months,(averages to $1257); but that's gross, not net. Take home is closer to $900, but can be much lower depending on state and local taxes (PA is particularly known for those).

Or.. that leaves about $200 month for food, clothing, transportation, etc. IF you are fortunate enough to live near where you work, so that you don't have to have a car, it can barely work out. As long as you don't get sick!

Add any other extra factor... maybe you get sick, you have to drive, you have kids, etc, etc and, well... difficult turns to impossible.

more to the point, a family of 4, in PA qualifies for many kinds of assistance if they are making less than $39,000. I DO think that is a bit high, or would be, if it were not for healthcare. Healthcare can throw all of that out the window and drive even someone making much, much more into bankruptcy.

6. You sure seem to be an expert on owning a business and knowing the ins and outs. How many businesses do you run? Or do you just like to get info off Google, form an opinion and pretend to be an expert?

No, not taking the bait. Read what I wrote, not what you seem to think I have said.

[Phatscotty]

we are talking about 14 million dollars..right?

Do you believe there are 14 million dollars worth of people in the state of Florida who are on welfare and who are also abusing illegal drugs? I certainly don't.

nooooooooooo

the 14 million it will cost for the urine tests. isnt that what you were saying would be the impetus for the increase on gov't spending?

Wooooosh.

If the drug tests cost 14 million, then there would have to be at least 14 million worth of people on welfare who abuse drugs, for this drug testing to break even financially. Do you or do you not believe that to be the case?

Simple math!

Drug testing costs X
Drug testing saves Y where
Y = the amount of 1 welfare check times the amount of people getting welfare who use drugs

IF X > Y THEN Drug testing welfare recipients costs more money than it saves.

In this case, X = 14 million. Do you believe Y to be more, or not?

wow, it might be nice to have those numbers. Oh, guess what, the "idiot" has them right here! AND I WANT TO HELP YOU LIKE NEVER BEFORE!

Florida State Budget = 58 billion in 2011. Welfare eats up 12% of that.

Try 6 billion tutse.

To answer your question, yes, 6 billion is more than 14 million

wooooooooooooooooooooooooosh indeed

7% of all welfare recipients are chemically dependent. that means out of a 6 billions dollar cost for FL welfare, about 500 million goes to chemically dependent people.