D.T.W.A.

[keiths31]

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

Not trying to bait you...but you make a lot of assumptions. You demonize business owners and being one I take offense. I know what I know and you know what you know and we aren't going to agree. I'll leave it at that.

[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.

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

Not 14 million individuals...14 million dollars worth of individuals. A big difference.

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.

You do realize that the Republicans haven't been in charge of the country for 8 consecutive years, right?

[Woodruff]

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?

You don't seem to be arguing anything I've said here, even though your post is a direct response to mine.

[Night Strike]

Player fails to realize that the vast majority of minimum wage and just above minimum wage workers are those who are in school (high school or college) or just looking for some extra cash (like a 2nd job in the home). Very, very few are people actually trying to provide for a livelihood or a family on that little amount of cash. That fact is conveniently forgotten every time the minimum wage is debated. When you raise it, not only are you raising the costs of everything through inflation (which hurts the middle class), but you're also costing jobs for people who need basic experience. Minimum wage is designed for part time, young employees, but since it's raised by people who cry that some people aren't getting paid enough for their families (even though they aren't at minimum wage to begin with), those jobs are cut from the people who need them the most. Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs either directly or through inflation, it doesn't raise the standard of living.

[Phatscotty]

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

Not 14 million individuals...14 million dollars worth of individuals. A big difference.

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.

You do realize that the Republicans haven't been in charge of the country for 8 consecutive years, right?

no doubt Player. The democrats took over in 2006....like, 5 years ago. How you can hold a position without facts is beyond me. This is all the democrats economy. When republicans were running things, we had 56 straight months of job growth. This does not make me a republican, but it does turn your factless opinion on it's head.

[Timminz]

most workers are willing to take a hit for a time

Statements like this are why I don't bother reading anything you have to say about economics, any more. You clearly have never studied it, or if you have, it was so long ago that you've distorted what you learned in your memory, or the field has progressed far beyond what they were teaching in the 70's.

Please, do some currently reading if you're going to continue trying to discuss economics.

Maybe stick to discussing negative externalities. At least there, you sort of know what you're talking about.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

You do realize that the Republicans haven't been in charge of the country for 8 consecutive years, right?

It was a quote... I did not write that. And I believe that dates the piece.

[keiths31]

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.

You do realize that the Republicans haven't been in charge of the country for 8 consecutive years, right?

It was a quote... I did not write that. And I believe that dates the piece.

Shouldn't you ensure your sources are correct then before presenting them?

[PLAYER57832]

most workers are willing to take a hit for a time

Statements like this are why I don't bother reading anything you have to say about economics, any more.[

Ironically enough, that is more sociology than economics... but anyway.

You clearly have never studied it, or if you have, it was so long ago that you've distorted what you learned in your memory, or the field has progressed far beyond what they were teaching in the 70's.

Please, do some currently reading if you're going to continue trying to discuss economics.

Maybe stick to discussing negative externalities. At least there, you sort of know what you're talking about.

, I already said I am talking about what has actually happened in plants, stores, etc around here. This is not fiction.

"Willing" does not mean "eager". It means they won't quit, strike, or burn the plant down.
BUT, the key is that they will do this IF they know there is some kind of future, that their cut will make a real difference in the health of the company and not just pad the checks of the executives.

The problem is that too often that is not the case. Employers more and more see one worker as just replacable by another, nothing of real value... and the people working know it full well.
Why WOULD they agree to take a cut when the executives are still getting their nice bonuses, pay raises and fancy life styles? Why WOULD they agree to take a cut when there is absolutely no gaurantee that they will get their raises back when things get better. Why WOULD they agree to take a cut when there is no gaurantee that, no matter how good a worker they are, they will have a job when they return from an illness or injury?

Several plants here had profit sharing plans. Those are all gone. Not just not paying becuase times are bad, but GONE. No matter if things are better or not, there will be no bonuses. But, the company was able to attract good people with lower base wages because they could hold out the profit sharing bit. Many of those people have since left... disgusted.

Workers and bosses all want more money. That is human nature, but why is it that the baseline workers are expected to take the biggest hits. Why are they greedy for wanting enough money to simply maintain a decent lifestyle, but executives are "just getting their due" for making enough to live very extravagent lifestyles?

[PLAYER57832]

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.

You do realize that the Republicans haven't been in charge of the country for 8 consecutive years, right?

It was a quote... I did not write that. And I believe that dates the piece.

Shouldn't you ensure your sources are correct then before presenting them?

Then again, you might just check the dates which I did provide. The article I presented was published in 2010. It quotes a New York Times article which would have been written earlier.

Or, in other words. I was accurate. But nitpick away and ignore any real point.

[PLAYER57832]

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

Not trying to bait you...but you make a lot of assumptions. You demonize business owners and being one I take offense. I know what I know and you know what you know and we aren't going to agree. I'll leave it at that.

I see, so saying that someone paying a person to work a fulltime job and not paying them enough to live is "demonizing" them?? Good to know.

And.. it would be nice if you bothered to read before criticizing what I say.

[Woodruff]

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.

You do realize that the Republicans haven't been in charge of the country for 8 consecutive years, right?

It was a quote... I did not write that. And I believe that dates the piece.

Ah, you're right...sorry about that. In my reading through it in "edit mode" I didn't catch that it had switched to the article. However, as you say, that dates the article a fair amount and makes me wonder about the relevance of the rest of the article.

[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?

You don't seem to be arguing anything I've said here, even though your post is a direct response to mine.

People, whoever they are want what will benefit them.

People are willing to take pay cuts if they A. truly believe it will help them stay employed in the long run. and/or can truly expect to get more returns later. This means both believing that the company has a future (and a future in which they want to participate) AND that the company will "keep its promises" to pay back later.

In tough economic times, when there are fewer jobs, it is much easier to "sell". However, people are not entirely stupid. When they get told "take a pay cut for the good of the company" and then find that the execs, etc are getting bonuses and/or raises... well, what do you think not just their answer, but the answer of anyone else in that company and likely in nearby companies will respond?

Also, many times employees know that companies are failing for a lot of reasons that are not going to change. Sometimes its mismanagement, sometimes its the general situation. (often a lot of both). Again, while people are willing to bail water to keep a ship sinking, at some point when all the patches begin to fail.. it is time to just abadon it.

Another issue is benefits other than salaries. A LOT of people, and I mean a LOT are more than willing to take pay cuts to keep better insurance, to pay more toward the insurance a company offers. Then you have things like flexibility in schedules, built up vacation, the "atmosphere", etc. (not to even mention travel distance, etc.)

Economists often ignore these things because they are so difficult to quantify. But, in fact, they can mean a lot more to a worker than salary, once a person is making enough to meet their basic needs,anyway.

What you said is true if you ignore the whole picture and look only at salary. What I said is true if you look at the whole picture.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

You do realize that the Republicans haven't been in charge of the country for 8 consecutive years, right?

It was a quote... I did not write that. And I believe that dates the piece.

Ah, you're right...sorry about that. In my reading through it in "edit mode" I didn't catch that it had switched to the article. However, as you say, that dates the article a fair amount and makes me wonder about the relevance of the rest of the article.

Yes, I normally don't post things I haven't vetted at least partially. However, I thought it pertinent to the subject. And I think the basic questions it asks are relevant, particularly in the context of Florida and welfare/drug tests.

[BigBallinStalin]

most workers are willing to take a hit for a time

Statements like this are why I don't bother reading anything you have to say about economics, any more.[

Ironically enough, that is more sociology than economics... but anyway.

You clearly have never studied it, or if you have, it was so long ago that you've distorted what you learned in your memory, or the field has progressed far beyond what they were teaching in the 70's.

Please, do some currently reading if you're going to continue trying to discuss economics.

Maybe stick to discussing negative externalities. At least there, you sort of know what you're talking about.

, I already said I am talking about what has actually happened in plants, stores, etc around here. This is not fiction.

"Willing" does not mean "eager". It means they won't quit, strike, or burn the plant down.
BUT, the key is that they will do this IF they know there is some kind of future, that their cut will make a real difference in the health of the company and not just pad the checks of the executives.

The problem is that too often that is not the case. Employers more and more see one worker as just replacable by another, nothing of real value... and the people working know it full well.
Why WOULD they agree to take a cut when the executives are still getting their nice bonuses, pay raises and fancy life styles? Why WOULD they agree to take a cut when there is absolutely no gaurantee that they will get their raises back when things get better. Why WOULD they agree to take a cut when there is no gaurantee that, no matter how good a worker they are, they will have a job when they return from an illness or injury?

Several plants here had profit sharing plans. Those are all gone. Not just not paying becuase times are bad, but GONE. No matter if things are better or not, there will be no bonuses. But, the company was able to attract good people with lower base wages because they could hold out the profit sharing bit. Many of those people have since left... disgusted.

Workers and bosses all want more money. That is human nature, but why is it that the baseline workers are expected to take the biggest hits. Why are they greedy for wanting enough money to simply maintain a decent lifestyle, but executives are "just getting their due" for making enough to live very extravagent lifestyles?

Sorry, cupcake, you still require some basic education on economics if you want people to take you seriously.

Recall my standpoint that you lack of the desire to commit to mutual understanding of others' viewpoints. Your dodging it with "um but Timminz that's sociology to, and since I'm a biology teacher for school kids, I know what I'm talking about."

Once again, you continue with your blind policy of ignoring others' standpoints and relying solely on your own limited interpretation of the world as being 100% certain/correct.

[Timminz]

I just noticed that I wrote, "...do some currently reading..."







How embarrassing.

[PLAYER57832]

Player fails to realize that the vast majority of minimum wage and just above minimum wage workers are those who are in school (high school or college) or just looking for some extra cash (like a 2nd job in the home). Very, very few are people actually trying to provide for a livelihood or a family on that little amount of cash. That fact is conveniently forgotten every time the minimum wage is debated.

Not forgotten at all, in fact it is part of my argument. Remember, MY argument is that minimum wage is not enough to support anyone, unless they are getting assistance. Most singles, males do not qualify for assistance and therefore will stay on welfare or other types of assistance instead of taking one of those jobs.

In PA, for example, anyone making less than 39,000 qualifies for assistance of various types. I believe THAT level is way too high. However, it does mean that people making less than that are being subsidized. Without those subsidies, many of those people would be demanding higher wage jobs. The companies are not seeing that pressure precisely because those subsidies are there, not because they are paying a reasonable wage. Though note, I already said that I think 39K IS a reasonable wage.. in fact, I would say more like $9.00 is OK, maybe even $8.50 (at least in most areas), and that people making that should not be getting assistance except in certain circumstances.. such as subsidies for school.

Second, you are largely incorrect, but discovering this takes some digging. A lot of single women DO take minimum jobs. They take those jobs, then get assistance in childcare, etc, etc. If they are decent workers, many will get moved over to training programs. Another group that often gets minimum wage are older people. Some are, indeed supplementing Social Security (a different category), but others are shy of SS age and still needing to work. The 50 plus group get hit very hard.

Thirdly, a group you forget are those who are out of high school and not headed to college. We have a LOT in that group here and they wind up taking jobs that pay a bit above minimum, but not much.

Also, as I have noted before, healthcare has a LOT to do with this. Expecting someone making even $9 to pay $1500-$3000 deductable (and note that the list of things "not counted" toward that deductable are HUGE-- my friend, who is diabetic had to pay $750 last month for his supplies without it counting toward the deductable. thankfully, he does not have to pay that much every month, but he does have to pay at least a couple hundred every month).

Right now, lack of universal coverage is more damaging even than a too low minimum wage.

When you raise it, not only are you raising the costs of everything through inflation (which hurts the middle class), but you're also costing jobs for people who need basic experience.

The problem with this argument is that we are already paying these people more, through taxes. That is the point you like to sidestep. As much as I believe we need government subsidies for the lowest level, this system which is basically a back-handed way of supporting businesses is very inefficient. Far better to simply require the companies to pay better outright.

I also think we need to look at some other types of assistance, but restructure how we do it. We need more affordable housing, but dispersed, not in "projects" or even comparatively large apartment buildings. Isolating the poor and "parentally deficient" (let's face it, many in this category are that), compounds problems. For example, while I am sad that I could not do enough for some of the neighbor kids to change their lives completely (a seven year old who watches her dad commit suicide, plus a lot of other issues is going to be in bad shape unless they get a LOT of help..a nd maybe even then). However, I know I and other neighbors have made a difference in some kids. That type of help is much harder to give to the kids living in the local subsidized housing unit.. its isolated, away from town, etc. However that gets off topic (sorry).

Minimum wage is designed for part time, young employees, but since it's raised by people who cry that some people aren't getting paid enough for their families (even though they aren't at minimum wage to begin with), those jobs are cut from the people who need them the most. Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs either directly or through inflation, it doesn't raise the standard of living.

Trainees, and youth are almost always excluded from the minimum wage requirements (as are most agricultural workers, many restaurant employees and some others). So, again, you distort the picture. The minimum wage IS designed to set a baseline level for working people.

Also, with the poor economy what used to be true no longer is. Go to your local fast food place and chance are you see a few college grads, teachers, etc and not just the "dropouts" (though ironically enough, many fast food places pay halfway decently.. it is the retailers and "personal care professions" that tend to pay the least).

[Phatscotty]

Upon my return from Anthony Weiner's district in NY, I just wanted to share that I learned the state of NY also pulls welfare money from drug users.

[notyou2]

Urine tests for food stamps!!!!!

[natty dread]

Upon my return from Anthony Weiner's district in NY, I just wanted to share that I learned the state of NY also pulls welfare money from drug users.

I suppose you consider that a good thing

[notyou2]

Apparently, Phatty considers anything that keeps the poor suppressed a good thing.

[Night Strike]

Apparently, Phatty considers anything that keeps the poor suppressed a good thing.

How is doing drug tests on welfare recipients suppressing the poor? Drugs suppress the poor, not the tests that are designed to catch drug abusers.

[notyou2]

Apparently, Phatty considers anything that keeps the poor suppressed a good thing.

How is doing drug tests on welfare recipients suppressing the poor? Drugs suppress the poor, not the tests that are designed to catch drug abusers.

Don't feed them, maybe they'll all die and we will be better off.

How is that not oppressing them? Or are you that dense.

[GreecePwns]

Apparently, Phatty considers anything that keeps the poor suppressed a good thing.

How is doing drug tests on welfare recipients suppressing the poor? Drugs suppress the poor, not the tests that are designed to catch drug abusers.

Do you ant government out of people's lives?

[Symmetry]

Apparently, Phatty considers anything that keeps the poor suppressed a good thing.

How is doing drug tests on welfare recipients suppressing the poor? Drugs suppress the poor, not the tests that are designed to catch drug abusers.

Possibly because it's not a test we apply equally to other recipients of public funding- say, for examples, bankers. It's no secret that there's a cocaine problem in the banking industry. I trust I'm not saying anything unreasonable here. We all know that cocaine is used heavily in the banking industry. That's not something that I'll be challenged on, right?

Now we also know that bankers have been huge recipients of tax payer money, right? Am I going to be called out on that? We know that a lot of these drug users received tax payer cash, and we know that a lot of them are using that cash to buy drugs.

At some point my argument may seem unreasonable, but so far I think we're fairly solid. We know that some of the money paid to bankers is going on drugs. To say otherwise is to pretend either a) the banking industry is free of/has no problem with cocaine and other drugs, or b) no tax payer money is being given to bankers.

Now, Nightstrike, I assume that you also support the mandatory testing for drugs of all employees of major banks to catch drug abusers. Otherwise, it would seem that you're just supporting tests for poor people who abuse drugs. That would make you seem like a bit of a hypocrite, no? Saying that drug abuse supported by federal money is bad if poor people do it, but ok if rich people do it?

After all, cocaine abuse is widely known to cause reckless decisions, and it would be a shame if people in charge of the economy took unreasonable risks. That might cause economic problems for a huge number of people. Can you imagine if tax payers were giving money to an industry with a huge cocaine addiction? And those addicts were dealing with large sums of money? Some of us, not you Nightstrike, might call into question the wisdom of giving money to those people for drugs known to cause risky behavior.

Instead, of course, you demand that only those recipients of public money that can be defined as welfare should be tested for drugs. Presumably out of concern that public money might be spent on illegal drugs, or that someone under the influence of drugs bought with public money might possibly do something to harm society as a whole. Am I right about your opinions on this?

That only those in certain income groups and professions who receive money from the government should have mandatory drug tests?