If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Cute jobless couple claim £17,680 a year in benefits, don't even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off: "Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn't go down that route" (w/pics)   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 376
    More: Dumbass, housing benefit, child tax credit  
•       •       •

34894 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 5:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



376 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 09:49:40 AM

Teufelaffe:
I don't have the link handy, but a study was done on that, and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a whopping 0.01% increase in the price of products and services. The whole, "OMG, if we pay the poors more money, everything will get too expensive!" is a bullshiat myth.


Elasticity is a concept in economics that has been around a long time. It just seems to be a fact of life that the people that complain the most about the economy, know the least about how it works.
 
2013-01-27 09:49:44 AM
I've thoroughly enjoyed the number of people who quoted me, believing I somehow was saying that welfare in this country ISN'T abused.  I was saying that the abuse that happens to the welfare system in the UK is worse than the abuse that happens to the welfare system here.  You know, like saying, "You think it's bad here?  Check out what's going on over there."  That's not the same as saying the welfare system in the United States is not gamed by anyone.

Jesus Christ, people.
 
2013-01-27 09:51:21 AM
wtom - there is plenty of fresh water to go around. This planet's surface is 70% water.
 
2013-01-27 09:53:10 AM

GreenSun: It's just being smart. Why work if you'll make less than what you can get for free? Only work if you can earn more than you can get by not doing anything.


Agreed, this couple is making a rational busiess decision. This reminds me of those articles speaking to how businesses can simply walk away from unfavorable mortgages with a minimum of criticism while individuals are put to a higher moral standard to keep paying. Morality has no place here. If we want to see changes in behavior, change the laws.
 
2013-01-27 09:53:17 AM
"We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It's important she looks nice.
"We like a takeaway too, Why shouldn't we? It isn't like I'm some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It's silly to think I'd actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.
"Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It's actually really hard for us. We're in a lose-lose situation here."


yeah, uh--that is not a real quote.
 
2013-01-27 09:58:11 AM
WELFARE CREEPS BEAM GAY RADIO WAVES INTO YOUR CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS. ALSO KILL GRANDMA WITH YOUTH IN ASIA.

SCROLL DOWN FURTHER, HOT CHICK PIC.

BOOBIES!
 
2013-01-27 10:01:04 AM

jtown: Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.

Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!


A one for one reduction in benefits to offset a new salary won't work. Take a simple case - you get $20k in annual govt benefits, but you're offered a job at a $20k salary. Why should you work for $20k when you can get it for free? This is the fundamental problem with a lot of welfare programs. They give you just enough to live on but they don't incent you to find work that pays just enough to live on.
 
2013-01-27 10:01:33 AM
I do like their Trains...
 
2013-01-27 10:02:20 AM

LiberalConservative: Lighten up, tongue in cheek etc. Sounds like the American system is out of balance then, and perhaps corporation's requirements need adjusting. But I do hope you realise the purpose of a corporation is not to benefit society. Rather their purpose is to make profit which just happens to produce other benefits to society like products, services, employment, taxes and so on. If you do not agree to that... what solution or system do you suggest? Socialism/communism/comunes? -That last bit was more tongue in cheek in case you missed it.


That's precisely what the government was designed for: To keep entities that are doing harm to society in check. And right now, the average multinational corporation is doing more harm to society than good...and getting away with it by buying out of all the governments it can, and refusing to do business with those it can't. And the people outside of the government are allowing them to get away with it under the guise of freedom...as in "we're free to rid your pockets of all that excess money, and we're free to pay you as little as possible, and if you don't like that...well, you're free to suckle off the ebil gubmint teat...like we do."
 
2013-01-27 10:03:41 AM

IlGreven: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

Another solution? Maybe corporations could offer jobs that pay the job-seekers more than they get sitting at home.

But no, that would cut into a corp's profit, so that's right out.


If businesses were compelled to pay higher wages they'd just pass on the cost to the consumer. So we would all end up paying for welfare anyway.
 
2013-01-27 10:04:42 AM

dopekitty74: farkeruk:
Trust me, I could find these people a job within a day. A friend of mine got made redundant recently and while looking for another job (he wasn't going to be unemployed for long), he got a job in a pub. It took less than a day of walking around town to get a job.
The whole reason why UK supermarkets, shops and cafes are stuffed full of Poles, Ukranians, Russians and Romanians is that those shops just can't get the staff.
Funny that, those are the sorts of jobs my hubby is trying to get there, and he can't get one, even though the last job he had, he held for nearly four years before marrying me and moving to Canada.


I love that story about how easy it is to get a menial job--always from a bunch of people who've never done that kind of work in their lives, but somehow always know that there's tons of illegals and stuff working in those fields, because no white people will do "that kind of work."

Maybe you should leave it to the people who actually do "that kind of work" to know what the job market is like in those fields. I don't see the crew at McDonalds telling YOU how to update your resume.
 
2013-01-27 10:07:56 AM

farkeruk: Flaumig: I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.

Well, let's see: perhaps it's because old people and children can't be expected to work, but 21 year old adults are perfectly capable of working. And well, I don't mind my money getting spent on educating kids, fixing roads, defence and people who can't work but I take exception to my money being spent on moochers.


They can be. Children were getting their hands and fingers cut off by looms and what not and getting lung diseases from being sent up to clean chimneys not so long ago. That sort of thing is a price worth paying if it means right wing newspaper owners can pay less taxes.

opiumpoopy: fusillade762: Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.

Yeah, that austerity did wonders for their economy *snert*

We haven't actually had any austerity in the UK...

/ do carry on with your talking points, though.


Go look at how much cuts your local council has to make because of less funding from central government, nitwit.
 
2013-01-27 10:11:26 AM
Since you have to proof to the unemployment people, even in Britain, that you are looking for work to qualify for the dole, maybe putting in a tabloid you do not even try is a great way to get your benefits cut to £0.00 a year. I don't think they thought through their cunning plan.

They are also going to be screwed during retirements. Basic rate is £80/week if you don't add to it.
 
2013-01-27 10:11:44 AM

Flaumig: Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.


Children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work aren't shiatting out more and more kids who will then be raised to hold the same values and thus repeat the process with exponential growth. If we sterilized these assholes before giving them a dime, then nobody would care.
 
2013-01-27 10:15:28 AM
It's musical chairs. Except they don't just take away chairs, they add players.

This seat is reserved for CEOs
 
2013-01-27 10:18:52 AM

a login name very similar to this one: I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 620x467]


By his daughter? Maybe also in the dark?
 
2013-01-27 10:18:57 AM

Zasteva: Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you forces you to earn.

Fixed that for you.


Yeah, how dare people have to work to survive.  It's barbaric.
 
2013-01-27 10:25:40 AM
Headlne: Corporate-Owned Media Outlet Conflates Single Anecdote about Welfare Abuse in Order to Distract Public from the TRILLIONS Lost to Abuses of Corporate Tax Code.
 
2013-01-27 10:29:35 AM

Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.
Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.
Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you earn.



Yeah, see, the difference between my statement and your statement is mine was non-partisan and true while yours was partisan douchebaggery and false.
 
2013-01-27 10:29:48 AM
This is from the Onion, right? Right? Please?
 
2013-01-27 10:34:45 AM

Weidermeijer: Didn't ANYONE notice the hot chick in the article at the bottom???

OF COURSE, she isn't British... she's Lithuanian.


I'd let her satiate me, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.
 
2013-01-27 10:36:20 AM
I know that this story is in Britain, but seriously, in the US, more than half of our national budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes. That's right, we spend more on giving the wealthy and corporation favorable tax status than we do on ACTUAL SPENDING.

I don't care how lazy or undeserving you or NewsCorp believes the recipients to be, this is wealthiest nation on Earth, every tax dollar that goes to feeding a hungry person is a-ok in my book.
 
2013-01-27 10:47:12 AM

xria: After all a citizens dividend would also be paid out to blacks and hispanics, not just white people, so the majority of the white poor would vote/campaign against it.


Sad but true...( the GOP has done a magnificent job at motivating people to vote against their best interests, IMHO)
 
2013-01-27 10:47:47 AM

umad: Flaumig: Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.

Children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work aren't shiatting out more and more kids who will then be raised to hold the same values and thus repeat the process with exponential growth. If we sterilized these assholes before giving them a dime, then nobody would care.


And statistically, neither are people like this.

The people who are actually shiatting out kids by the dozen (at least in the US) are the Mexicans that work 18 hours a day for minimum wage and refuse even basic everyday government services regardless of immigration status because of all the deportation talk they hear on AM radio and Fox News.

Certain segments off the media are fond of saying that Americans are getting lazy, and usually it's tied to some racial or class-based political argument (like in TFA), but in truth, our workforce productivity in this country is the highest of any country in human history. We work harder for less compensation in this country than any free people who have ever walked the face of the earth.
 
2013-01-27 10:48:33 AM

Lsherm:
Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Lsherm: Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you forces you to earn.

Zasteva: Fixed that for you.

Lsherm: Yeah, how dare people have to work to survive. It's barbaric.


Never thought of it that way. Of course people should be forced to work to survive! And if they are too young to work and their parents are lazy, we'll just let them starve! Anything else would be barbaric!!

/that was sarcasm, in case you weren't sure.
 
2013-01-27 10:56:40 AM
Entitled because of taxes paid by hard working parents?We have six grown children who work and carry their own load(they even help us on occasion).If any one of them took this route this old man would beat their ass into next year.
 
2013-01-27 10:58:18 AM
They must have a vote on this stuff coming up with all these articles.
 
2013-01-27 11:03:40 AM
The top 1% always win by pitting the bottom two 49.5% against each other.

This is certainly a hit-piece designed by the super-wealthy to get one half of the working/poor class angry at the other half, so they will vote against the social safety net that costs the super-wealthy dearly.
 
2013-01-27 11:11:12 AM

BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?


oh, I don't know, self respect? passing on something valuable to her child / children?

//I get where you're coming at. just be snarky.
 
2013-01-27 11:14:22 AM
You'd think with the number of these stories we see, people going to the newspaper to tell this story of mooching off the gov't someone would do something about it... I would like to volunteer to burn their cute little flat down.

/why no, I'm not a nice person.
 
2013-01-27 11:15:52 AM

Zasteva: Of course people should be forced to work to survive!


It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.

The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".

I used to work making cell phone interfaces until my department was outsourced. I started making $18/hr with full benefits. When outsourcing didn't go well, they tried to restart the department staffed with part-time interns, all making less than $10/hr, no benefits.
Mrs. Grumbles' employer is a US national chain of pharmacies. They getting ready to pull a Circuit City and lay off a bunch of their store management, and give them the "opportunity" to return at a $4-$8 pay cut per hour.
What the hell can you even do? Corporations make the dole an attractive alternative to being farked over daily in every way imaginable. Don't even give me this "learn a valuable skill" crap. Can't think of anything more farking relevant in the world today than cell phone interfaces, and that didn't save me or my department from the same bullshiat.
 
2013-01-27 11:16:34 AM

cryinoutloud: I love that story about how easy it is to get a menial job--always from a bunch of people who've never done that kind of work in their lives, but somehow always know that there's tons of illegals and stuff working in those fields, because no white people will do "that kind of work."


Well, not only is it true, there are also lots of reasons WHY it's true.

Look at this couple. They're getting £17K/year in benefits. I think his numbers are wrong - he'd have to earn £23K to stand still. But still, that's a lot more than minimum wage. And to stand still, he's got to go to work for that rather than staying home, smoking and watching TV. Even if he goes to work and earns £25K, well, that means he ends up only slightly better off than being at home all day.

This isn't a criticism of these people. And people can moan about what these people do, but honestly, getting a job in their situation is nuts.

For decades people said that there weren't the jobs, then after we got free movement of people from Poland, they quickly started taking shop and farm jobs. Funny, they found jobs that people with no qualifications could have done.
 
2013-01-27 11:19:11 AM

aesirx: passing on something valuable to her child / children?


What are you passing on to your kids if you're breaking your back for a job that won't even let you break even?
 
2013-01-27 11:19:43 AM
When the minimum wage in a state/country is less than what benefits pay, benefits will always win. Especially (as in the US) when the minimum wage isn't even a livable wage.
 
2013-01-27 11:26:54 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".


It's both.

On the one hand, people on the dole in the UK get more than what they need to survive (if you can smoke, drink and afford a cellphone you have more than you need). On the other hand, we heavily tax people on low incomes (if you're on min wage, you're paying income tax) and housing is expensive because of NIMBYs preventing development.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:07 AM

farkeruk: For decades people said that there weren't the jobs, then after we got free movement of people from Poland, they quickly started taking shop and farm jobs. Funny, they found jobs that people with no qualifications could have done.


Yeah, that isn't what happened. I'm sure it's the same shiat that happened in the U.S.
They didn't find new jobs. They just offered to do the same jobs at a cheaper wage and greedy employers took advantage. If the employers are going to turn around and whine about people on the dole, they only have themselves to blame.
Your country's citizens are either kept at your country's standard of living through wages or taxes. Pick one, and don't expect your profits to increase as standard of living declines due to your cheapassery.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:50 AM

LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.


People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.
 
2013-01-27 11:28:27 AM

stiletto_the_wise: The top 1% always win by pitting the bottom two 49.5% against each other.

This is certainly a hit-piece designed by the super-wealthy to get one half of the working/poor class angry at the other half, so they will vote against the social safety net that costs the super-wealthy dearly.


Indeed. It's interesting too when we begin to point the finger at the top 1% how quickly they play the victim card. They are the real moochers off society that do nothing relative to the amount they take in. When this is brought up in America it turns into "Class Warfare!!!", and "We're the job creators where would you be without us, it's those welfare queens"

It's also impressive how defensive the rich are of their fortunes. They go to great lengths to try and make a case for paying back less to society when they are already richer than most could ever dream. Lengths that include putting people that already have nothing in greater debt. If there were a hell there would be a special section of it waiting for them.
 
2013-01-27 11:31:05 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: They didn't find new jobs. They just offered to do the same jobs at a cheaper wage and greedy employers took advantage. If the employers are going to turn around and whine about people on the dole, they only have themselves to blame.


Less than minimum wage? Try again.
 
2013-01-27 11:31:28 AM

aesirx: BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?

oh, I don't know, self respect? passing on something valuable to her child / children?

//I get where you're coming at. just be snarky.


If I'm desperately poor, and I have to make a choice between my ego and feeding my kids, "self-respect" is going to get thrown out the window every time.

Oh, and if I take a job that sets me back financially, what I'm actually passing along to my kids is called "stupidity" and "a total lack of respect for the value of a dollar."
 
2013-01-27 11:32:10 AM

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


But profitable.
 
2013-01-27 11:34:41 AM

farkeruk: It's both.


Nope. Not even.

Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

Get rid of the idea that the poor need to suffer in silence and boredom, eating only rice and beans. There's no reason anyone in a first world nation should live like that when we have such bounty all around us, a lot of it wasted for no other reason than it's more profitable to throw it away than reuse it.
 
2013-01-27 11:37:02 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Zasteva: Of course people should be forced to work to survive!

It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.

The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".

I used to work making cell phone interfaces until my department was outsourced. I started making $18/hr with full benefits. When outsourcing didn't go well, they tried to restart the department staffed with part-time interns, all making less than $10/hr, no benefits.
Mrs. Grumbles' employer is a US national chain of pharmacies. They getting ready to pull a Circuit City and lay off a bunch of their store management, and give them the "opportunity" to return at a $4-$8 pay cut per hour.
What the hell can you even do? Corporations make the dole an attractive alternative to being farked over daily in every way imaginable. Don't even give me this "learn a valuable skill" crap. Can't think of anything more farking relevant in the world today than cell phone interfaces, and that didn't save me or my department from the same bullshiat.


I agree completely.
 
2013-01-27 11:40:05 AM

MayoSlather: It's also impressive how defensive the rich are of their fortunes. They go to great lengths to try and make a case for paying back less to society when they are already richer than most could ever dream. Lengths that include putting people that already have nothing in greater debt. If there were a hell there would be a special section of it waiting for them.


Particularly since it's society (and the backs of the middle class) that have allowed them to amass their fortunes.

If you work for a living, you're a sucker, since both the idle rich and the idle poor are mooching off of your labor. And rest assured, the rich are mooching far more off you than the poor. But since the idle rich control the conversation and steer the dialog, they've gotten you convinced that it's those lazy people on benefits who are the big problem!
 
2013-01-27 11:41:26 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.


This.

If you're a wealthy person who disagrees that ALL people who work full time are entitled to healthcare, a home, food, and a living wage, then you deserve the negative tax consequence that are coming your way as a result of the political/economic climate you've created.

The fact is that the wealthy spent the last 70 years trying to deny us workers our right to organize and bargain collectively, so us workers simply did an end-around these bargaining tables that were stacked against us, and made our demands through legislation.

Let Obamacare be a lesson to the John Schnatters of the world.
 
2013-01-27 11:42:59 AM

farkeruk: Sergeant Grumbles: They didn't find new jobs. They just offered to do the same jobs at a cheaper wage and greedy employers took advantage. If the employers are going to turn around and whine about people on the dole, they only have themselves to blame.

Less than minimum wage? Try again.


Of course no employer would ever hire someone for cash under the table to skirt minimum wage and benefits laws, or pay someone for fewer hours than they actually worked, or hire them as something other than an hourly employee. Nope, those things have never happened, and never will, because all employers are honest fine upright people who have no incentive whatsoever to try to get around the rules. I mean, it's not like it would mean they'd make more money or anything.
 
2013-01-27 11:45:37 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Get rid of the idea that the poor need to suffer in silence and boredom, eating only rice and beans.


Of course they shouldn't! The poor, those who choose not to work, should live the High Life. Lobster, Caviar, T-Bone steaks! Huge (free) apartments, free childcare, free everything!! All paid by the idiots who actually, you know, work.
 
2013-01-27 11:50:47 AM

fredklein: Of course they shouldn't! The poor, those who choose not to work, should live the High Life. Lobster, Caviar, T-Bone steaks! Huge (free) apartments, free childcare, free everything!! All paid by the idiots who actually, you know, work.


Reducto ad absurdium!
Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury. If the TVs are bigger and flashier, it's because technology is better, not because the poor have become better at bilking you out of money. My cell phone bill is less than the cost of a tank of gasoline, less than a week of groceries, for fark's sake.
 
2013-01-27 11:53:21 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: farkeruk: It's both.

Nope. Not even.

Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

Get rid of the idea that the poor need to suffer in silence and boredom, eating only rice and beans. There's no reason anyone in a first world nation should live like that when we have such bounty all around us, a lot of it wasted for no other reason than it's more profitable to throw it away than reuse it.


These minor, modern luxuries exist not just for the benefit of the poor, but to occupy the poor, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. When Stalin talked about "bread and circuses", these things weren't gifts to the people, they were to placate the people into submission, to provide political safety to those that were benefiting most from his society.

Ask anybody who's ever worked at a prison: conservatives may like to biatch about prisoners getting televisions and palatable food, but these things make everyone safer in that environment. You're less likely to shiv your cellmate and start a riot if you have something to look forward to that can be taken away.
 
2013-01-27 11:58:31 AM

udhq: These minor, modern luxuries exist not just for the benefit of the poor, but to occupy the poor, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Don't think we're quite there, yet.
Instead we're stuck where those ignorant of hardship thinking the poor can be punished and shamed into not being so, all while exacerbating what makes them poor to begin with.
 
Displayed 50 of 376 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report