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.

(NPR)   What happens when you give money with no strings attached to the poor? Do they: A) spend it on hookers and blow; B) burn it to keep warm; or C) start up businesses and buy food for their children?   (npr.org) divider line 276
    More: Obvious, developing world, poor people, return on investments  
•       •       •

10504 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-25 09:15:00 AM  
Gotta have money to make money.  More at 11.
 
2013-10-25 09:17:11 AM  
Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.
 
2013-10-25 09:17:55 AM  
Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.
 
2013-10-25 09:18:25 AM  
It's almost like poor people immediately spend their money in local economies while rich cocksuckers, they probably all in the Hamptons braggin' about what they make.

fark you and your Hampton house
I fark your Hampton spouse
Came on her Hampton blouse
and in her Hampton mouth
 
2013-10-25 09:19:56 AM  
Half Price Books did a massive clearance sale event and bragged about "And we'll donate the rest to Feed The Children" leaving me to ask "Children eat books? Or are they going to transport the books to impoverished regions and hand them out thus making it impossible for a small book dealer to grow up in the area since they have to compete with free".

It tends to be a problem when we toss out piles of food. We flooded the Haitian market with free rice, impoverishing local rice farmers. Want to hand out food? Buy local first.
 
2013-10-25 09:20:41 AM  
Well it happened this time, surely it will happen any time this is tried any where in the world.
 
2013-10-25 09:21:46 AM  
No, they'll use my tax dollars to get steak and Lobsters and lottery tickets.

/amirite?
 
2013-10-25 09:21:58 AM  
That's Socialism.
 
2013-10-25 09:22:27 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.


Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.
 
2013-10-25 09:22:41 AM  
So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).
 
2013-10-25 09:23:04 AM  
Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....
 
2013-10-25 09:23:09 AM  
Let's conduct an experiment. I'm poor. Gimme some money
 
2013-10-25 09:23:38 AM  
Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.
 
2013-10-25 09:23:50 AM  
D) Flat screen plasma refrigerators.
 
2013-10-25 09:24:41 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....


I smell merger...
 
2013-10-25 09:26:17 AM  

vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.


It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.
 
2013-10-25 09:28:18 AM  
Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.
 
2013-10-25 09:29:39 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


And to be fair, option A still is a net positive for the economy.  Drug dealers and hookers buy lots of shiat.  Well maybe blow is a lesser example because it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't cartel backed but it usually touches enough hands that most of the cut you're paying for goes to local dealers.
 
2013-10-25 09:29:47 AM  
Odd.. if you give money to enterprising people who just happen to be poor, they do something with it.

If A = enterprising people and some Poor B are A, then give money to B ?
 
2013-10-25 09:30:54 AM  
Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.
 
2013-10-25 09:31:00 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: automagically


imageshack.us
 
2013-10-25 09:32:34 AM  
Seems to be some ambiguity in some of the claims.  It also doesn't seem to have stated whether alcohol and gambling increased, just that they spent at least some money on "good" things.  Presumably by self-reporting.   Also, I'd like to see the selection process.

There is this growing realization that being poor is really stressful

Quick, someone tell Ric Romero about this shocking revelation.
 
2013-10-25 09:32:41 AM  
So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?
 
2013-10-25 09:34:15 AM  

beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.


Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.
 
2013-10-25 09:34:30 AM  

dwrash: So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?


Where did you get these numbers?
 
2013-10-25 09:34:30 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: That's Socialism.


Yes, people voluntarily giving their own money to a charity is socialism.
 
2013-10-25 09:34:40 AM  
Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "
 
2013-10-25 09:34:55 AM  
My cousin is/was always poor and in trouble with financial/money issues.  He was just completely senseless with money.

When he did get money, he would blow it.  Due to his low income, he gets a decent tax refund each year.  Does he save it for a rainy day?  Use it to pay off debt?  Nope - buys the latest gaming console or iGadget.

Going to his house at Christmas, you'd think he was wealthy with the gifts he bought his family/kids.  He bought a $700 PS3 package a couple of years ago.  Then he had to pawn it for $180 two months later because he couldn't pay his bills.  Dumb and dumber.

He wonders why no one in the family will give him money when he asks for help.
 
2013-10-25 09:36:01 AM  
But, but, communism!
 
2013-10-25 09:36:19 AM  

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "


Yes and the very next paragraph:

"Paul Niehaus, one of Give Directly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up - and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes. "
 
2013-10-25 09:36:28 AM  
d) buy 1000 vuvuzelas
 
2013-10-25 09:38:03 AM  

mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-10-25 09:38:06 AM  

the_rhino: No, they'll use my tax dollars to get steak and Lobsters and lottery tickets.

/amirite?


Yes

http://www.ebtcardbalance.com/ebt-store-s-s-lobster-ltd-massachusett s- st124
 
2013-10-25 09:38:31 AM  
Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.
 
2013-10-25 09:39:26 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


And skrimps is skrimps.
 
2013-10-25 09:39:51 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 300x168]


Is that a new meme? I have no clue what it means.
 
2013-10-25 09:40:54 AM  

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


So you're taking the moral high ground and suggesting we should stop feeding the poor, is that your angle?
 
2013-10-25 09:41:30 AM  

mayIFark: Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 300x168]

Is that a new meme? I have no clue what it means.


Yes, Man.
 
2013-10-25 09:41:50 AM  

odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.


Cool selectivity story bro. In UK not so long ago the government found out we were handing out about a billion per year in housing benefit for people to have spare bedrooms they didn't need. This was keeping people who did need those properties on waiting lists. The government reduced the housing benefits of claiments who refused to move, saving UKP800M, and put back UKP150M into a specialist fund to help out the few who would be really inconvenienced.

In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax" in a bid to fool the viewing public into thinking this was some new tax on bedrooms in general. Furthermore, and this is the relevent point, they spent $$$ of compulsory license fee money on a research firm to scour the country looking for people who lost out. Eventually, after a FOUR MONTH search, they found a couple and stuck them on prime-time news with no balance to speak of.

This is the same BBC (and indeed the same actual news programme) that conspired to conceal repeated acts of child sexual exploitation because it was done by "one of their own", and which in order to divert people's attention started randomly accusing right-wing politicians of pedophilia knowing that they would be able to pay off the lawsuits using cash forcibly taken from the public. Oh, and its then-director-general became "buddies" with Al Gore, and promptly stiched up a policy conferance so that it would henceforth treat climate change as undisputed fact. It then refused to honour FOI requests about the conferance until it was finally discovered that it had been packed out with Greenpeace activists and the like. But, if you're an incompetant and incorrigably Marxist senior BBC manager, you can cock up as much as you want, and you'll still get a multi-million payoff from all the other incompetant Marxist hypocrite wankers in the upper ranks of the BBC. Money taken, ironically, from a highly regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest. Utter. Cock. Suckers.
 
2013-10-25 09:42:04 AM  
Maybe this whole time we've mailing rice and grain to Africa, we should have been mailing hundred dollar bills instead. Hmm
 
2013-10-25 09:42:11 AM  
The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.
 
2013-10-25 09:43:10 AM  

Carn: Yes and the very next paragraph:

"Paul Niehaus, one of Give Directly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up - and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes. "


It's probably a bit easier to start a small business where it is largely unregulated and not taxed to hell.
 
2013-10-25 09:43:12 AM  

beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.


yeah some folks are poor because of bad decisions and some are poor because of no fault of their own just like some people are rich because of good decisions and some are rich because of no work on their own. The Left really loves to put all rich in one "i got mine so fark you" bucket and the Right loves to put all poor in one "taker class" bucket. If you look at the level of hatred by the middle class there's not a lot of difference between the poor and the rich.
 
2013-10-25 09:43:22 AM  
Also, as some people have pointed out, the article discusses giving aid to people in African countries, not welfare-poor in the US.

Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things.  Money will go a lot further in Uganda.  Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.

2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year.  Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.
 
2013-10-25 09:43:54 AM  
"A" so much "A"..... (reads article) Wait, Do they not have hookers and blow in Africa or something.
 
2013-10-25 09:44:03 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: THE GREAT NAME: So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).

now we know Sen. Cruz' Fark handle.


Don't even know who Sen. Cruz is. But maybe that's not the point. This is a "dig whistle" isn't it.
 
2013-10-25 09:44:52 AM  
I wonder why Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc haven't tried this. Between them they could make a few thousand people millionaires.
 
2013-10-25 09:45:03 AM  

gblive: "A" so much "A"..... (reads article) Wait, Do they not have hookers and blow in Africa or something.


Who needs hookers when you can rape for free?
 
2013-10-25 09:45:13 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: HindiDiscoMonster: THE GREAT NAME: So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).

now we know Sen. Cruz' Fark handle.

Don't even know who Sen. Cruz is. But maybe that's not the point. This is a "dig whistle" isn't it.


I mean "dog whistle"
 
2013-10-25 09:45:56 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....


No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.
 
2013-10-25 09:47:02 AM  

Carn: brobdiggy:

So you're taking the moral high ground and suggesting we should stop feeding the poor, is that your angle?


I'm saying that giving handouts can help in the short run, but it's not sustainable over the long term.  It's a much better idea to get people to help themselves.

Help the poor people?  Yes.
Help them in a way that creates dependency on the U.S. government teat?  No.
Have the help be contigent on learning a trade or skill, and part of the help program involves finding the person some work?  I would absolutely be in favor of that.*

*Works for US better than Africa
 
2013-10-25 09:47:06 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.


If you have an iPhone and can go to Applebee's, you aren't poor. Not by a long shot.
 
2013-10-25 09:47:47 AM  

odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.


And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.
 
2013-10-25 09:48:55 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.


When rich people blow money it's generally not on someone else to pay for their mistake.
 
2013-10-25 09:49:05 AM  

CapnPlaty: The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.


You are probably not going to start a new business because you already have a mean of income. Career change is not the same things as starting a career. Besides that, none of the other moves are bad.

I think it all boils down to a philosophical argument: if you give free money to people, is it more likely to make them lazy or give them a kick start.

Of course it depends on individual. The real question is, what percentage is likely to do what. According to conservatives 99% lazy 1% kick start. According to liberals (I consider myself one), 20% lazy 80% kick start.

It would be interesting to see the real number somehow.
 
2013-10-25 09:49:16 AM  

RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.


Yes, because if you gave away $1000 to 100 people and one of them started a successful business, 10 did something to improve their child's education, 30 used it to pay down debt, 57 used it to feed their family directly and one buys a motorcycle all that anyone will hear about is the last guy, who bought hookers and blow and ended up having a heart attack and dying.

because socialism.
 
2013-10-25 09:49:43 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


Citation SORELY needed. That certainly flies in the face of what I've seen in my city.

And, BTW, while it seems intuitive that more people in a poor country (rather than people in a bad neighborhood) would do something proactive with the money I have yet to see anyone note that this "study" was simply asking the recipients what they bought. If they spent it on khat or hookers would they say that?
 
2013-10-25 09:49:56 AM  
See: Katrina, Hurricane for an example of what people in Western countries do when they receive money they haven't earned.
 
2013-10-25 09:50:09 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

Cool selectivity story bro. In UK not so long ago the government found out we were handing out about a billion per year in housing benefit for people to have spare bedrooms they didn't need. This was keeping people who did need those properties on waiting lists. The government reduced the housing benefits of claiments who refused to move, saving UKP800M, and put back UKP150M into a specialist fund to help out the few who would be really inconvenienced.

In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax" in a bid to fool the viewing public into thinking this was some new tax on bedrooms in general. Furthermore, and this is the relevent point, they spent $$$ of compulsory license fee money on a research firm to scour the country looking for people who lost out. Eventually, after a FOUR MONTH search, they found a couple and stuck them on prime-time news with no balance to speak of.

This is the same BBC (and indeed the same actual news programme) that conspired to conceal repeated acts of child sexual exploitation because it was done by "one of their own", and which in order to divert people's attention started randomly accusing right-wing politicians of pedophilia knowing that they would be able to pay off the lawsuits using cash forcibly taken from the public. Oh, and its then-director-general became "buddies" with Al Gore, and promptly stiched up a policy conferance so that it would henceforth treat climate change as undisputed fact. It then refused to honour FOI requests about the conferance until it was finally discovered that ...


so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well
 
2013-10-25 09:50:09 AM  

brobdiggy: Carn: brobdiggy:

So you're taking the moral high ground and suggesting we should stop feeding the poor, is that your angle?

I'm saying that giving handouts can help in the short run, but it's not sustainable over the long term.  It's a much better idea to get people to help themselves.

Help the poor people?  Yes.
Help them in a way that creates dependency on the U.S. government teat?  No.
Have the help be contigent on learning a trade or skill, and part of the help program involves finding the person some work?  I would absolutely be in favor of that.*

*Works for US better than Africa


So how are the poor children who are supposed to be getting an education have time to go to school when they are spending all their time working for a 1$ an hour in a sweatshop since we're going to take away federal housing, food, and other benefits to them?
 
2013-10-25 09:50:46 AM  
brobdiggy:  ...Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.

Thought experiment: Suppose you take a room full of people, and choose the 50% with the highest (actual wealth) / (deserved wealth). Get them to agree on a moral code among themselves. What would it be? Well, in the least surprising thing you'll read on FARK all day, it will be that:

"one should never talk about people who don't deserve money unless they have more money than any of us".

Through ceaseless pushing of this moral code, it has been slipping into the public consciousness to the extent that ordinary folk are afraid to say things like what you said.
 
2013-10-25 09:50:51 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.


If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.
 
2013-10-25 09:51:14 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 300x168]

Is that a new meme? I have no clue what it means.

Yes, Man.


Good to know.

/no idea what I just learned though
 
2013-10-25 09:52:54 AM  

Lady J: so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well


He said they adopted the term, not created it.
 
2013-10-25 09:53:04 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: That's Socialism.

Yes, people voluntarily giving their own money to a charity is socialism.


Anyone doing anything to help anyone is socialism. Ergo Jesus dying for your sins = socialism!
 
2013-10-25 09:53:10 AM  
Some people will use the money responsibly to improve their lives. Other people will foolishly spend the money on fleeting things and end up right where they started.

Gosh, it's almost like poor people are individuals who are capable of making good and bad decisions just like everyone else, and are not automatically going to do the things a commonly held socio-economic bias says they will. But but but that means the only real way to effect true change is to give each and every poor person the chance to improve themselves and their lives, through continued funding of strong social support programs, financed primarily by taxes on the rich and middle class!
 
2013-10-25 09:53:15 AM  

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.
 
2013-10-25 09:54:08 AM  

baconbeard: See: Katrina, Hurricane for an example of what people in Western countries do when they receive money they haven't earned.


So, people started to receive money from Katrina? That's good.

/had to
 
2013-10-25 09:54:16 AM  
"There is this growing realization that being poor is really stressful, and that hat can make it hard to organize your life and plan and make good decisions,"

That's why I'm stressed and have been making bad decisions in my life.  Wrong hat.
 
2013-10-25 09:54:36 AM  

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.
 
2013-10-25 09:55:04 AM  

mayIFark: CapnPlaty: The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.

You are probably not going to start a new business because you already have a mean of income. Career change is not the same things as starting a career. Besides that, none of the other moves are bad.

I think it all boils down to a philosophical argument: if you give free money to people, is it more likely to make them lazy or give them a kick start.

Of course it depends on individual. The real question is, what percentage is likely to do what. According to conservatives 99% lazy 1% kick start. According to liberals (I consider myself one), 20% lazy 80% kick start.

It would be interesting to see the real number somehow.


You were doing well until you revealed that, like most libs, you can't accept the idea that there could be such a thing as moderate conservative. Presumably, you think wanting to attach conditions to Obamacare is exacting the same as invading Poland.
 
2013-10-25 09:55:08 AM  
As a poor person every extra penny I have left over gets put into things I need to make money which would make me less poor so I could by more things I need to make more money. However when the absolute MAX I can put aside each month is no more than $30-40 (on a REALLY good month) makes the process grindingly slow and excruciating that by the time I manage to build anything significant it's already out of date (computer stuff).

If I had been given even an extra $50-100 per month or a one time influx of $5000-10,000 a few years back I would be out of poverty and paying taxes by now and even able to pay that money back. Instead I'm a drain and get treated like a freaking leech/criminal just because I'm broke.

In fact if the "job creator" who completely imploded his business despite my best efforts to get him to make RATIONAL decisions with company resources hadn't ripped me off for thousands of dollars I would have been well on my way to making money again.

Also no one will lend to you when you're poor ESPECIALLY when you have the AUDACITY like I did to never go into debt with credit cards, cars, houses, bill collectors, etc.

So glad I listened to all the super responsible people in this world and worked myself into a wheelchair, avoided debt and splurging on useless crap, etc while they ran the entire economy into the ground, made housing completely unaffordable, froze wages and stole every freaking penny they could. I watched my youth slip away as all my friends enjoyed life and I toiled away for scumbags who stabbed me in the back.

I was (and am) one of the most bootstrappy mother frackers you'll ever meet. Where's mine, assholes?!
 
2013-10-25 09:55:57 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.


Nope.
They will use this as evidence that "job creators" need more money.
 
2013-10-25 09:56:27 AM  

mayIFark: I think it all boils down to a philosophical argument: if you give free money to people, is it more likely to make them lazy or give them a kick start.

Of course it depends on individual. The real question is, what percentage is likely to do what. According to conservatives 99% lazy 1% kick start. According to liberals (I consider myself one), 20% lazy 80% kick start.

It would be interesting to see the real number somehow.


You may find this interesting:

http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really -c hange-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
 
2013-10-25 09:56:51 AM  
ITT:  liberals that don't understand the difference between people that are poor because they live in a sh*t country and poor people in America who are conditioned to not have to work hard and that a million safety nets will catch them on the way down.  Give $1,000 to a man whose life depends on his ability to do something wtih it, and you will see motivation and results.  Give $1,000 to a man who can spend that $1,000 on a big screen TV and still get food stamps and have his basic needs met, and you will see different results.

I laugh at how easily you cows have bought into the anti-capitalist movement that's 'chic' the last 10 years or so.  The reason its funny:  you consider yourselves to be enlightened and intelligent.
 
2013-10-25 09:57:04 AM  

zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.


Because every rich person is a huge corporation.
 
2013-10-25 09:58:33 AM  

zeroman987: What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.


That's Congress blowing our money to give welfare to rich people.
 
2013-10-25 09:59:19 AM  

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


There's no limit on how many troll alts one can add to the ignore list, is there? Only, it seems like every day there's another one, and I sometimes worry about maxing out the list.
 
2013-10-25 09:59:22 AM  

brobdiggy: Also, as some people have pointed out, the article discusses giving aid to people in African countries, not welfare-poor in the US.

Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things.  Money will go a lot further in Uganda.  Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.

2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year.  Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.


Best start thinking about it more then... Once robotics starts taking over more and more jobs, you're going to have to change the thinking of how society deals with unemployment.
 
2013-10-25 10:00:50 AM  
Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

ih2.redbubble.net
 
2013-10-25 10:00:59 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.

Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.


I'm not saying "screw the poor". The point I'm illustrating is that handing money to somebody who has demonstrated a clear inability to handle money responsibly will likely do nothing to help that person. There may be exceptions, but those examples would certainly be exceptional.

And, no, I don't think hyperbolic pronouncements should be based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from "some guy" on the internet.
 
2013-10-25 10:01:53 AM  
Lady J:
so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113
I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well

Here's what I said:

THE GREAT NAME: In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax"
...

...so I didn't say they invented it. AFAIK it was Labour party spin doctors who thought the term up. The fact that BBC chooses to give its "impartial" news reports using politically charged lexicon taken directly from the out-of-office left-wing opposition party is pretty damning I'd say.
 
2013-10-25 10:02:10 AM  

Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.


That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.
 
2013-10-25 10:02:17 AM  

Phineas: ITT:  liberals that don't understand the difference between people that are poor because they live in a sh*t country and poor people in America who are conditioned to not have to work hard and that a million safety nets will catch them on the way down.  Give $1,000 to a man whose life depends on his ability to do something wtih it, and you will see motivation and results.  Give $1,000 to a man who can spend that $1,000 on a big screen TV and still get food stamps and have his basic needs met, and you will see different results.

I laugh at how easily you cows have bought into the anti-capitalist movement that's 'chic' the last 10 years or so.  The reason its funny:  you consider yourselves to be enlightened and intelligent.


potato/0
 
2013-10-25 10:06:02 AM  
Guys, my gut feeling based on recent right wing American talking points trumps any research or studies you might cite.
 
2013-10-25 10:06:15 AM  
When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.
 
2013-10-25 10:06:19 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.

That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.


Slippery logic?  That Walmart and other large corporations keep labor costs low by paying poverty wages and then reap the benefits in terms of record profits?  This isn't some new magical idea, it's been going on for years.

California To Wal-Mart: Enough! No More Taxpayer Subsidized Profits For You
 
2013-10-25 10:08:17 AM  

brobdiggy: 2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year. Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true


They will spend that money on what?  Food, clothes, electronics, etc right?    So business will sell more which makes their bottom line better, people are happier at the bottom and at the top.  Kind of a stimulus you might say.

Wait I forgot you have to cut taxes to the wealthy and the money will trickle down to the poor people.
 
2013-10-25 10:08:40 AM  

lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.


I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.
 
2013-10-25 10:08:56 AM  

dwrash: So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?


No, it justifies your "fark the poor" philosophy.

/But, I'm sure you saw a welfare mom with a Gucci handbag, so...
 
2013-10-25 10:09:47 AM  
There are some many view of this, so I decided to go full Maslow on this.

People in third world countries are struggling just to have their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing met.  Perhaps they really understand the need to use money to get those fundamental survival needs met.

Folks in America have their basic needs met - often through working the welfare system.  They don't really understand the meaning of true poverty.  Thus, figuring they can get their food, shelter, and clothing provided, they misuse money, not realizing that this is a possible means of improving their situation rather than just getting some wants fulfilled.

Some folks really need the assistance of welfare just to get back on their feet.  Many folks just work the system to fund their lifestyle.
 
2013-10-25 10:10:59 AM  

tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....


You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.
 
2013-10-25 10:11:02 AM  

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


So what happens when conservatives want to (a) not give any money to poor people and (b) reduce spending on education, health care, social security, etc. so the top 0.1% can get another tax break? (And they don't care, they send their kids to private school, have a great health insurance policy anyway, private guards in their private subdivision, etc. So why spend money so a bunch of poor people have a decent school?)

I mean, I could almost sorta get behind the whole "screw anyone who is poor, no matter the reason" mentality, if it didn't also come with huge cuts to education or any other program that might give hard-working poor people a chance to pull themselves up and improve their situation. (Forget about the middle class working their way up, the super-rich have pulled that ladder up behind them a long time ago.) And it's all couched in "we need tax cuts for job creators" and "we have a spending problem" when it's really "Boo hoo, Mitt Romney pays 12% of his income in taxes (less than most middle class workers) and some of that goes to feed and educate these stinking poor people. If we just let them die, he may only have to pay 10% and can buy that third yacht."

Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for those who are lazy or choose not to work. Unlike Mitt Romney (who is unemployed and makes millions in dividends/untaxed capital gains), I work hard for my money every day. But as the income disparity in this country widens, the middle class is being pushed toward the bottom (go ahead and look at a graph of income and see if 50% is closer to the bottom or the line on the right that goes straight up), and we are becoming more like the Dark Ages and third-world hellholes where like 6 families have all the money and everyone else lives in poverty.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:02 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.



You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:10 AM  

Wise_Guy: zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.

Because every rich person is a huge corporation.


Respond to my comment, not what you wish my comment says.

Every corporation is run by a rich person. When a government gives money to a corporation, a rich person gets it through their salary or through dividends. Poor people don't own very much and they don't own stock.

Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people. When the house of cards fell, the taxpayers footed the bill. So, his statement is incorrect. When rich people blow all their money, it DOES come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

See also Walmart (the government subsidizes their low wages by a ridiculous amount, putting more money in their pockets) and the other companies that get corporate welfare.

It is disengenuous to say that rich people don't get welfare because the majority of welfare goes to the rich. Democracy is failing, not because the masses are voting themselves tons of money, it is failing because the rich have tricked the masses into voting to give the rich even more money.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:19 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.

That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.

Slippery logic?  That Walmart and other large corporations keep labor costs low by paying poverty wages and then reap the benefits in terms of record profits?  This isn't some n ...


Supply and demand doesn't work that way.  Nobody is forced to work at Walmart *and* Walmart is complying with minimum wage laws.  The fact that Sam Walton can make more money than some other less-rich business man doesn't increase the value of the guy scanning items at the checkout.

If Walmart wasn't paying enough, nobody would work there.  People do, of their own free will.  It's quite clear that they are paying a fair wage, because people accept it under reasonable circumstances.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:39 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Uranus Is Huge!: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.

If you have an iPhone and can go to Applebee's, you aren't poor. Not by a long shot.


Yes. You understood my point. Good job.
 
2013-10-25 10:13:35 AM  
It is amazing to me just how much the Puritan idea that poor people are poor due to having low character pervades American thinking.  The idea that situation may have more to do with someone's inherent wealth seems an anathema to most people.  I guess there is attribution bias as well, with people who figure if someone else is going through tough times, it must be because they are somehow flawed, but if they themselves are going through tough times, it is because they were dealt a shiatty hand.
 
2013-10-25 10:13:49 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.


http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?
 
2013-10-25 10:14:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Guys, my gut feeling based on recent right wing American talking points trumps any research or studies you might cite.


Really? That's a shame because I was hoping to take some left wing rubbish and dress it up as a study, and push it through some corrupt public-funded research instatute so that it would then become infinitely convincing to FARK's libs. But obviously not you!
 
2013-10-25 10:14:31 AM  

teenytinycornteeth: tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....

You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.


Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.
 
2013-10-25 10:15:13 AM  

zeroman987: Wise_Guy: zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.

Because every rich person is a huge corporation.

Respond to my comment, not what you wish my comment says.

Every corporation is run by a rich person. When a government gives money to a corporation, a rich person gets it through their salary or through dividends. Poor people don't own very much and they don't own stock.

Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people. When the house of cards fell, the taxpayers footed the bill. So, his statement is incorrect. When rich people blow all their money, it DOES come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

See also Walmart (the government subsidizes their low wages by a ridiculous amount, putting more money in their pockets) and the other companies that get corporate welfare.

It is disengenuous to say that rich people don't get welfare because the majority of welfare goes to the rich. Democracy is failing, not because the masses are voting themselves tons of money, it is failing because the rich have tricked the masses into voting to give the rich even more money.


And all this would change if the rich person spent his money more wisely.  Good to know.
 
2013-10-25 10:15:38 AM  
Because a person starving in Africa is situationally equivalent to the U.S. lower classes who have a statistically larger obesity problem than hunger.

Dream on, FARK socialists.
 
2013-10-25 10:16:03 AM  

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.


Same goes for pretty much any company who gets away with paying the majority of their workforce so poorly that they have to be on assistance programs just to get by. Add on top of that the ridiculous tax breaks they get from setting up tax havens and shady overseas bank accounts, and taking advantage of loopholes, to say nothing of corporate welfare. Given all the various and sundry ways there are to buy your way out of paying your fair share of taxes if you have the money, I'd say the middle class subsidizes rich peoples' lifestyles to a greater extent than we do for the poor.
 
2013-10-25 10:16:58 AM  
Weird, thought I erased that first one. Bleh, me dum, need coffee.
 
2013-10-25 10:17:39 AM  

jshine: teenytinycornteeth: tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....

You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.

Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.


Then he should shut his mouth about Chicago. Omaha is a freaking pit and I wouldn't move there even if you gave me a 20% raise.

Oh btw, for the price of a two bedroom condo in the area where cabrini green used to be, you could get a nice house in Omaha.
 
2013-10-25 10:18:21 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.


But the point your are missing here is that people with $8hr jobs shouldn't be having families.  If we can drive that point home enough, then eventually we can drive the poors out of existence and we can have our country back!  (insert maniacal cackling)
 
2013-10-25 10:19:16 AM  
A) Los Angeles
B) New York
C) Africa
 
2013-10-25 10:19:24 AM  

brandied: There are some many view of this, so I decided to go full Maslow on this.

People in third world countries are struggling just to have their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing met.  Perhaps they really understand the need to use money to get those fundamental survival needs met.

Folks in America have their basic needs met - often through working the welfare system.  They don't really understand the meaning of true poverty.  Thus, figuring they can get their food, shelter, and clothing provided, they misuse money, not realizing that this is a possible means of improving their situation rather than just getting some wants fulfilled.

Some folks really need the assistance of welfare just to get back on their feet.  Many folks just work the system to fund their lifestyle.



You don't think living in Chicago in the winter with no electricity is "true poverty"? You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty? I really despise you people who speak with so much authority about issues that you obviously have no idea about. You are what I like to call a phony intellectual. You actually think that you are BETTER than poor people because you were born with a mommy and daddy who could pay the bills. your ignorant comment that I highlighted is the perfect illustration. You think that poor people don't "realize" that spending money frivilously is the opposite of saving it? You think that poor people don't know that MONEY will improve their situation? But, I guess you're able to sustain yourself because you were smart enough to figure it out, huh? Unlike those poors who lack your intelligence. Smh. Please.
 
2013-10-25 10:19:34 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Supply and demand doesn't work that way.  Nobody is forced to work at Walmart *and* Walmart is complying with minimum wage laws.  The fact that Sam Walton can make more money than some other less-rich business man doesn't increase the value of the guy scanning items at the checkout.

If Walmart wasn't paying enough, nobody would work there.  People do, of their own free will.  It's quite clear that they are paying a fair wage, because people accept it under reasonable circumstances.


That's unfortunately not how our current economy works.  Walmart doesn't pay enough and a million people work there.  There are millions of jobs that do not pay enough, which is the reason why we have a class of people called the working poor.  Most people who can work, do, and are still poor.  The belief that poor people are all lazy moochers is the right wing's love child.

Of course, it's not just Walmart.  Let's say you can choose between them, Target, Best Buy, or some other big box.  If you work retail, you're making shiat wages and you're f*cked.
 
2013-10-25 10:20:32 AM  

farkdd: So what happens when conservatives want to (a) not give any money to poor people and (b) reduce spending on education, health care, social security, etc. so the top 0.1% can get another tax break?


What if sometimes (and I only mean sometimes) doing something like this would actually help the poor? What would be your moral view then?
 
2013-10-25 10:20:43 AM  

zeroman987: Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people

, the government, and pension funds. When the house of cards fell, Congress decided to give some of them huge handouts designed to prevent the market from fixing the problem, andthe future  taxpayers footed the bill.

FTFY.

// I hate people who say we "had to" bail out the banks and car companies when they complain about the system they are endorsing.
 
2013-10-25 10:20:59 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?


What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.
 
2013-10-25 10:22:36 AM  
It is intresting what happens when you keep money in a community. The follow up to this should be better schooling and training to keep the momentum going. This wouldnt work with my roomates mom, you give her money and she would blow it. For a while my roomate was sending her $400 a month to help with her "brothers". And if her mom didnt get that money she would get drunk and call my roomate leave a dozen angry drunk voicemails, she had the time to do this since she dosent work.
 
2013-10-25 10:22:46 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: HotWingConspiracy: Guys, my gut feeling based on recent right wing American talking points trumps any research or studies you might cite.

Really? That's a shame because I was hoping to take some left wing rubbish and dress it up as a study, and push it through some corrupt public-funded research instatute so that it would then become infinitely convincing to FARK's libs. But obviously not you!


By all means, do a detailed take down of this rubbish without using any homespun folksy nonsense about teaching men to fish.
 
2013-10-25 10:22:58 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).


Oh, you're not just a blatant racist trying to cloak his hate of "them" in Libertarian-sounding whargarrbl.  Oh, wait.

THE GREAT NAME: First I wondered why this young boy would aid a theif, attempt to injure, deface property, and finally insult a state worker who was simply doing his job.  Then I saw the skin colour of the people he grew up around.


THE GREAT NAME: This was just the best route in for a troll. But it was a bit obvious


Go away.
 
2013-10-25 10:23:34 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty?


That's called college.

Apparently you have no concept of what true poverty is.
 
2013-10-25 10:24:00 AM  

beezeltown: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.

Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.

I'm not saying "screw the poor". The point I'm illustrating is that handing money to somebody who has demonstrated a clear inability to handle money responsibly will likely do nothing to help that person. There may be exceptions, but those examples would certainly be exceptional.

And, no, I don't think hyperbolic pronouncements should be based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from "some guy" on the internet.


Then why are you presenting your anecdote as if it's some sort of argument?
 
2013-10-25 10:24:00 AM  

Wise_Guy: zeroman987: Wise_Guy: zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.

Because every rich person is a huge corporation.

Respond to my comment, not what you wish my comment says.

Every corporation is run by a rich person. When a government gives money to a corporation, a rich person gets it through their salary or through dividends. Poor people don't own very much and they don't own stock.

Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people. When the house of cards fell, the taxpayers footed the bill. So, his statement is incorrect. When rich people blow all their money, it DOES come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

See also Walmart (the government subsidizes their low wages by a ridiculous amount, putting more money in their pockets) and the other companies that get corporate welfare.

It is disengenuous to say that rich people don't get welfare because the majority of welfare goes to the rich. Democracy is failing, not because the masses are voting themselves tons of money, it is failing because the rich have tricked the masses into voting to give the rich even more money.

And all this would change if the rich person spent his money more wisely.  Good to know.


All this would change if rich people were forced to put their own money at risk and not the taxpayer's money. Maybe then they would spend more time evaluating their investments. Then again it must be nice to know you can invest in something and when it turns out to be crap, the government cuts you a check no matter how stupid you were! Not to mention the richest people don't actually work and live off investments.

Basically fark them.
 
2013-10-25 10:25:37 AM  
This reminds me of the old saying, "Give a man a fish. He eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he's drunk every weekend."
 
2013-10-25 10:26:26 AM  

vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.


Well that is the problem.

In Tennessee the poor know that they will get at least one meal a day and most likely two. In Africa the poor are lucky if they can eat once a day. The Republicans are right in this, that the less of a safety net a society provides the more their poor become self starters. The only downside is those that can't or won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps starve to death.  I'd rather provide the basics of life and have people by lifers in the welfare system, then allow my fellow citizens to starve to death.
 
2013-10-25 10:26:50 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?



"found that some welfare recipients make more "income" than those in the private sector."

"Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job."

Ok let's examine those 2 lines.  $8hr for a year is $16,640 a year, divide that by 12 months is $1386 a month in "income", assuming they say that said person gets max on everything --  food stamps so let's say $350, now public housing is probably $800 a month, then they add in healthcare and cash assistance and it's easy to see how you can "make" more money than working at $8 an hour.  How is this suprising?

"income" is not the same as liquid cash.
 
2013-10-25 10:27:10 AM  

New Age Redneck: This reminds me of the old saying, "Give a man a fish. He eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he's drunk every weekend."


Build a man a fire, he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
2013-10-25 10:27:56 AM  
I'm all for doing this here, as long as we track the inevitable, hilarious results.
 
2013-10-25 10:27:59 AM  

RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.


Except it turned out to be a hell of a lot more than 1 person out of 100 so your comment is stupid.

But you know which 1% does suck?
 
2013-10-25 10:28:28 AM  

zeroman987: jshine: teenytinycornteeth: tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....

You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.

Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.

Then he should shut his mouth about Chicago. Omaha is a freaking pit and I wouldn't move there even if you gave me a 20% raise.

Oh btw, for the price of a two bedroom condo in the area where cabrini green used to be, you could get a nice house in Omaha.


Well right, that was sort of my point.  Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.
 
2013-10-25 10:28:53 AM  

RedTank: /Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.


I'd rather give money to a poor person who then goes and spends it on alcohol than give the same amount of money to a charity that just gives most of it to the heads of the charity, like Komen. At least someone's getting a little extra enjoyment in their otherwise sh*tty life.
 
2013-10-25 10:29:15 AM  

vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.


This, except Detroit.
 
2013-10-25 10:30:06 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think living in Chicago in the winter with no electricity is "true poverty"? You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty? I really despise you people who speak with so much authority about issues that you obviously have no idea about. You are what I like to call a phony intellectual. You actually think that you are BETTER than poor people because you were born with a mommy and daddy who could pay the bills. your ignorant comment that I highlighted is the perfect illustration. You think that poor people don't "realize" that spending money frivilously is the opposite of saving it? You think that poor people don't know that MONEY will improve their situation? But, I guess you're able to sustain yourself because you were smart enough to figure it out, huh? Unlike those poors who lack your intelligence. Smh. Please.


Here is the problem with this progressive narrative. Even if we ignore the many, many government programs available to the lower classes in the U.S., if they found themselves truly desperate and approached any mainstream church or synagogue in the United States, explicitly asking for help turning their life around, there is no farking way they would be turned away without food, clothing, and being hooked up with some sort of decent work opportunity, at least for the short-term to give them a start. I can name several in my city alone. Why does this never happen in reality, despite being so painfully obvious? Because that would require both serious effort and humility. People want to fill out an application and get checks in the mail because it's less embarrassing than asking real people for life-changing assistance.
 
2013-10-25 10:30:36 AM  
chimp_ninja:

Go away.

No you go away. You're the biggest racist here. Even your login name is racist.
 
2013-10-25 10:31:45 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: Supply and demand doesn't work that way.  Nobody is forced to work at Walmart *and* Walmart is complying with minimum wage laws.  The fact that Sam Walton can make more money than some other less-rich business man doesn't increase the value of the guy scanning items at the checkout.

If Walmart wasn't paying enough, nobody would work there.  People do, of their own free will.  It's quite clear that they are paying a fair wage, because people accept it under reasonable circumstances.

That's unfortunately not how our current economy works.  Walmart doesn't pay enough and a million people work there.  There are millions of jobs that do not pay enough, which is the reason why we have a class of people called the working poor.  Most people who can work, do, and are still poor.  The belief that poor people are all lazy moochers is the right wing's love child.

Of course, it's not just Walmart.  Let's say you can choose between them, Target, Best Buy, or some other big box.  If you work retail, you're making shiat wages and you're f*cked.


You're making the assumption that 'If someone works X hours' they should have 'Y lifestyle'.  And I fundamentally disagree.

How much should someone get paid for doing X?  However much they can get!  Is a football player making 3 million per year overpaid?  No.  That's his value.  Being good at football is something a lot of people care about, and spend money to support.

Lots of jobs are trivial.  *Anyone* can do them.  I can, you can, my half-retarded nephew can.  How much should someone get paid for doing a trivial job?  Whatever they can get!  I used to work at McDonalds.  I was a 'good employee' but there isn't really a difference between a good employee and an average employee and a not horrible employee at McDonalds.  So, that sets the wage.

Our society feels that, the free market approach is too much.  Without laws and regulations, employers could band together and force wages down for trivial jobs where performance doesn't really matter; so we have laws to stop that.  Specifically the minimum wage laws.

As long as Walmart pays the minimum wage, they aren't doing anything wrong.  If people don't like it; they should complain about the law, not Walmart.  The law is artificially increasing prices, and that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  If the employees qualify for government assistance, that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  People will gladly work 50 hours per week for enough money to feed their children rice, history and even current living/working conditions show that.

Of course, there is very little difference between raising the minimum wage and giving 'working poor' government assistance.

But yeah, minimum wage already *isn't* a fair wage; it is an artificially inflated wage.  And if that isn't enough money, don't blame Walmart or Target, blame the lawmakers that put minimum wage where it is.  Getting upset at Walmart for not paying people more is like getting upset at people for declaring legitimate tax deductions when they file each year.  People SHOULD act in their own best interest, within the confines of the law and whatever internal sense of right and wrong they have.
 
2013-10-25 10:31:55 AM  

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "


Ah yes, selective quoting, the favorite rhetorical device of teabaggers ev'a'whea. Aside from signs like "get a brain morans."

What it IN FACT says is that the skeptic was impressed by the results, but noted two areas of weaknedd
 
2013-10-25 10:33:34 AM  

teenytinycornteeth: Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.


Let's not pretend that tlenon or THE GREAT NAME bother to thinly veil the fact that they're human garbage.

Well, assholes playing a character who is human garbage, at least.
 
2013-10-25 10:33:37 AM  

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "


Ah yes, selective quoting, the favorite rhetorical device of teabaggers ev'a'whea. Aside from signs like "get a brain morans."

What it IN FACT says is that the skeptic was impressed by the results, but noted two areas of weakness. Being a moran, you quoted only those two weaknesses and implied that the program is a failure.

Reading comprehension is for libtards!
 
2013-10-25 10:33:38 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?



You send me some whacked out blog that links to the DAILY CALLER? The website that asked the burning question that's on all of our minds..."Why doesn't the President have any white dogs"?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political-commentary-goe s -the-do?lite">http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political- commentary-goes -the-do?lite=

THAT Daily Caller?

/Stopped reading right there
 
2013-10-25 10:33:40 AM  

blindio: RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.

Yes, because if you gave away $1000 to 100 people and one of them started a successful business, 10 did something to improve their child's education, 30 used it to pay down debt, 57 used it to feed their family directly and one buys a motorcycle all that anyone will hear about is the last guy, who bought hookers and blow and ended up having a heart attack and dying.

because socialism.


It would be better to have people motivated through their work.  Talk about increasing minimum wages or wages in general.  Talk about giving people incentives to work and talk about moving them to a middle class. That would be better than just giving money away yes?
 
2013-10-25 10:33:52 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.


How many times, exactly, do you need to hear the same sort of story before you start thinking it might, just maybe, possibly be true?
 
2013-10-25 10:34:15 AM  
The other thing to point out here is when sending aid to impoverished countries the bulk of it gets absorb by overinflated costs, logistics, bureaucracies and outright theft. Just handing the cash directly to those that need it cuts that sh*t out. Will some people waste it? Definitely but who gives a sh*t? It costs more to pay for the anti abuse systems that are themselves abusing the money.

Bring that concept to the US. How much gets wasted on bullsh*t drug testing and anti fraud schemes? How much gets wasted on social workers who don't really give a sh*t and are just absorbing a paycheck and/or getting their rocks off by making their caseloads jump through ridiculous hoops just to get a measly few bucks? Again, will people abuse the system? Yes. But that is what fraud laws are for. Don't waste a ton of money assuming EVERYONE on bennies is a con artist. If someone is scamming it's pretty easy to see the red flags going up at which point you investigate. Compare this to an agency like the IRS. Do we audit every single person who files taxes? No. We trust that people will do the right thing and trust that the failsafes and warning systems will prevent fraud or alert the agency that someone is up to no good.

And as someone who as a young man was forced into that sh*tty system a few times I'll tell, ya... it's a f*ck of a lot harder to find a job when you are constantly getting harassed by these people or having to ask potential employers to sign your welfare form to prove you asked for a job. How does that look to an employer with all the negativity surrounding people on welfare? The stigma alone is enough for them to trash your resume so that time and opportunity have been wasted.

I propose if you want to do these job search requirements then set up a system that employers are required to provide a reference ID for ANYONE who comes in to apply. No signing papers or declaring whether you are on welfare or not. Just something that shows you did indeed apply somewhere.

There are tons of other common sense things that could be done but all we hear are screams to punish anyone who is forced accept benefits.

And at the end of the day there will ALWAYS be lazy people. Just let them be lazy. I don't want to work with or employ them. I don't want them so broke they're wandering the streets stirring up sh*t and looking for stuff to steal. I don't want them so depressed and angry that they turn to drugs or violence. Just let them do their thing of in some corner of society where we don't have to deal with them. When and if they are ready to make something more of themselves give them an opportunity to rejoin the productive populace.
 
2013-10-25 10:34:22 AM  

RightToWork: DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think living in Chicago in the winter with no electricity is "true poverty"? You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty? I really despise you people who speak with so much authority about issues that you obviously have no idea about. You are what I like to call a phony intellectual. You actually think that you are BETTER than poor people because you were born with a mommy and daddy who could pay the bills. your ignorant comment that I highlighted is the perfect illustration. You think that poor people don't "realize" that spending money frivilously is the opposite of saving it? You think that poor people don't know that MONEY will improve their situation? But, I guess you're able to sustain yourself because you were smart enough to figure it out, huh? Unlike those poors who lack your intelligence. Smh. Please.

Here is the problem with this progressive narrative. Even if we ignore the many, many government programs available to the lower classes in the U.S., if they found themselves truly desperate and approached any mainstream church or synagogue in the United States, explicitly asking for help turning their life around, there is no farking way they would be turned away without food, clothing, and being hooked up with some sort of decent work opportunity, at least for the short-term to give them a start. I can name several in my city alone. Why does this never happen in reality, despite being so painfully obvious? Because that would require both serious effort and humility. People want to fill out an application and get checks in the mail because it's less embarrassing than asking real people for life-changing assistance.


Please define "decent work opportunity".  If you say "minimum wage job", do you have any idea how much that sucks?  You can't possibly support yourself in my area (Northern VA), anywhere on that money, you just can't.  That won't even cover housing, electric, heat and water.  You know, basic shelter and warmth.  Still need food and clothes.  I guess you could go dig worms on the side of the road and make your own clothes out of plastics from the recycle bins.
 
2013-10-25 10:34:25 AM  
I would say that sure, there are outliers, but by and large, poor people gravitate to that condition. Take the lottery curse for example.  Typically, it is poor people playing.  When one wins, they have no idea how to maintain or build on wealth, so it evaporates.
 
2013-10-25 10:34:53 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

Well that is the problem.

In Tennessee the poor know that they will get at least one meal a day and most likely two. In Africa the poor are lucky if they can eat once a day. The Republicans are right in this, that the less of a safety net a society provides the more their poor become self starters. The only downside is those that can't or won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps starve to death.  I'd rather provide the basics of life and have people by lifers in the welfare system, then allow my fellow citizens to starve to death.


That right there is what I see as the fundamental difference between right and left in this country. Liberals believe it's the role of government to ensure its population isn't starving destitute on the street, conservatives believe government has no business giving out what they perceive as free handouts to undeserving people who won't take personal responsibility for their situation. What I think conservatives fail to grasp is that pretty much every time their model for dealing with the poor has been put into practice it's led to bloody revolts and uprisings. Social welfare programs are as much about keeping the rich in possession of their heads as they are about helping the poor.
 
2013-10-25 10:38:50 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: You're making the assumption that 'If someone works X hours' they should have 'Y lifestyle'.  And I fundamentally disagree.

How much should someone get paid for doing X?  However much they can get!  Is a football player making 3 million per year overpaid?  No.  That's his value.  Being good at football is something a lot of people care about, and spend money to support.

Lots of jobs are trivial.  *Anyone* can do them.  I can, you can, my half-retarded nephew can.  How much should someone get paid for doing a trivial job?  Whatever they can get!  I used to work at McDonalds.  I was a 'good employee' but there isn't really a difference between a good employee and an average employee and a not horrible employee at McDonalds.  So, that sets the wage.

Our society feels that, the free market approach is too much.  Without laws and regulations, employers could band together and force wages down for trivial jobs where performance doesn't really matter; so we have laws to stop that.  Specifically the minimum wage laws.

As long as Walmart pays the minimum wage, they aren't doing anything wrong.  If people don't like it; they should complain about the law, not Walmart.  The law is artificially increasing prices, and that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  If the employees qualify for government assistance, that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  People will gladly work 50 hours per week for enough money to feed their children rice, history and even current living/working conditions show that.

Of course, there is very little difference between raising the minimum wage and giving 'working poor' government assistance.

But yeah, minimum wage already *isn't* a fair wage; it is an artificially inflated wage.  And if that isn't enough money, don't blame Walmart or Target, blame the lawmakers that put minimum wage where it is.  Getting upset at Walmart for not paying people more is like getting upset at people for declaring legitimate tax deductions when they file each y ...


Haha, awesome.  So you'd remove those restrictions and we can go back to the robber baron days.  What else should we remove?  Worker's safety laws? 40 hour work week?

Since you are arguing that the minimum wage is too high, I expect good things out of you.  What kind of dystopian hellscape do you imagine for 99% of us in the future?
 
2013-10-25 10:39:31 AM  

brimed03: RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.

Except it turned out to be a hell of a lot more than 1 person out of 100 so your comment is stupid.

But you know which 1% does suck?


Yes, I do know which 1% sucks.  That 1% unquestionably needs to pay more - But everyone else needs to be motivated through working (long-term gain) as opposed to literally just handing them money (generally short-term gains).  Raise minimum wages and raise wages in general at the expense of the top 1%.  But do it through the system.
 
2013-10-25 10:41:24 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

Well that is the problem.

In Tennessee the poor know that they will get at least one meal a day and most likely two. In Africa the poor are lucky if they can eat once a day. The Republicans are right in this, that the less of a safety net a society provides the more their poor become self starters. The only downside is those that can't or won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps starve to death.  I'd rather provide the basics of life and have people by lifers in the welfare system, then allow my fellow citizens to starve to death.


You are right that it is a difficult choice between creating wealfare dependents versus allowing people to starve. Any you are right that the latter is worse.

HOWEVER:- if we must provide handouts so that starvation cannot happen, then it is right that we should aim to create a culture that stigmatises the fecklessness of people who don't need welfare but claim it anyway.

The problem is that libs don't like to talk about those people; they get wierd, accusatory and screechy. They try to say that the moderate right actually hate all of the poor, which is abject nonsense. The right strongly support the efforts of people to lift themselves up by the bootstraps. It is in fact the affluent left, with thir terror of being "overtaken" who try to keep them down. As I mentioned earlier, this "moral code" that you should never discuss the undeserving unless they are very rich (ie top 1% or 0.1%) is, to put it bluntly, the result of the fact that most libs are themselves undeserving but affluent "trustafarian" types - in other words, for all their high horse "I'm a better person because of my support for the poor" posturing, they are really all just smokescreening the fact of their own individual uselessness.
 
2013-10-25 10:43:04 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?

What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.


Or halving welfare.  The argument goes both ways.

Regardless though, the dilemma I described wasn't an unreasonable one.  And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.
 
2013-10-25 10:43:44 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


I don't think so. The problem is, in the midst of nowhere Africa, what else are
They going to spend it on? When there is a Walmart around every corner selling all kinds of crap it will be abused, maybe not by "most" but by enough that it needs to be monitored. Even if it's just 10 percent, that 10 of poor kids not being fed. Even so we well know that poor people in this country are more likely to buy twinkles than rice and beans or some vegetables.
 
2013-10-25 10:43:53 AM  

brimed03: nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "

Ah yes, selective quoting, the favorite rhetorical device of teabaggers ev'a'whea. Aside from signs like "get a brain morans."

What it IN FACT says is that the skeptic was impressed by the results, but noted two areas of weakness. Being a moran, you quoted only those two weaknesses and implied that the program is a failure.

Reading comprehension is for libtards!


I am neither a teabagger nor a libtard or even a moron to use your colorful language.

The comments were fairly positive up to that point, and I was shining a light on a very big potential problem because I feel many farkers do not read to the end of the article

If you read further down you might have seen my other comment. I find it a very interesting idea, but fraught with potential problems.

For the record, I feel that micro-loans are much more empowering than cash handouts with no strings attached.

In the future you may find discourse goes much smoother without resorting to name calling.

Ya moron!
 
2013-10-25 10:46:45 AM  

Carn: If you say "minimum wage job", do you have any idea how much that sucks? You can't possibly support yourself in my area (Northern VA), anywhere on that money, you just can't.


It's not just Northern Virginia.

Yes, some cost of living expenses vary wildly on where you live, particularly housing.  But a lot of costs are fixed.  Supermarket food doesn't vary wildly state to state.  Gasoline doesn't vary wildly state to state, and rural areas are often so spread out that bikes/walking/etc. aren't practical.  Electricity doesn't vary wildly state to state, and the variance it does have is more due to energy infrastructure than poverty levels.

So, yes.  If you live in the sticks, you will have more of the $14,500 per year you earn (before taxes, including 7.65% off the top for payroll) working full time at a minimum wage job after you cover your rent.  But you still need to eat, keep warm, and get from place to place.

 Plus, Northern Virginia has good infrastructure and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.  Out in the sticks, you probably don't have reasonable mass transit, any real choice of employer, etc.
 
2013-10-25 10:47:20 AM  

RedTank: brimed03: RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.

Except it turned out to be a hell of a lot more than 1 person out of 100 so your comment is stupid.

But you know which 1% does suck?

Yes, I do know which 1% sucks.  That 1% unquestionably needs to pay more - But everyone else needs to be motivated through working (long-term gain) as opposed to literally just handing them money (generally short-term gains).  Raise minimum wages and raise wages in general at the expense of the top 1%.  But do it through the system.


Dude, the system is rigged. The only people who can un-rig it? Bought and paid for by the people who benefit from it.
 
2013-10-25 10:47:57 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: You're making the assumption that 'If someone works X hours' they should have 'Y lifestyle'.  And I fundamentally disagree.

How much should someone get paid for doing X?  However much they can get!  Is a football player making 3 million per year overpaid?  No.  That's his value.  Being good at football is something a lot of people care about, and spend money to support.

Lots of jobs are trivial.  *Anyone* can do them.  I can, you can, my half-retarded nephew can.  How much should someone get paid for doing a trivial job?  Whatever they can get!  I used to work at McDonalds.  I was a 'good employee' but there isn't really a difference between a good employee and an average employee and a not horrible employee at McDonalds.  So, that sets the wage.

Our society feels that, the free market approach is too much.  Without laws and regulations, employers could band together and force wages down for trivial jobs where performance doesn't really matter; so we have laws to stop that.  Specifically the minimum wage laws.

As long as Walmart pays the minimum wage, they aren't doing anything wrong.  If people don't like it; they should complain about the law, not Walmart.  The law is artificially increasing prices, and that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  If the employees qualify for government assistance, that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  People will gladly work 50 hours per week for enough money to feed their children rice, history and even current living/working conditions show that.

Of course, there is very little difference between raising the minimum wage and giving 'working poor' government assistance.

But yeah, minimum wage already *isn't* a fair wage; it is an artificially inflated wage.  And if that isn't enough money, don't blame Walmart or Target, blame the lawmakers that put minimum wage where it is.  Getting upset at Walmart for not paying people more is like getting upset at people for declaring legitimate tax deductions when th ...


You're building a strawman....

I'm not saying that the minimum wage is too low, or too high.  I'm saying that it is an ARTIFICIAL limit.  The value of many minimum wage workers is actually *less* than minimum wage.  That is the entire point of a minimum wage, to artificially increase wages.

I'm not for or against minimum wage laws.  I'm saying it's silly to blame a company for not paying people 'enough' when they are both complying with and exceeding the minimum wage.  The average 'hourly' Walmart employee earns $9.40 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/costco-fast-food-strike s/ ) well above the minimum wage.  And that excludes all of their salary employees who typically earn significantly more.
 
2013-10-25 10:47:59 AM  

chimp_ninja: teenytinycornteeth: Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.

Let's not pretend that tlenon or THE GREAT NAME bother to thinly veil the fact that they're human garbage.

Well, assholes playing a character who is human garbage, at least.


In case anybody is wondering why chimp_ninja is so whiny, it's because he's had his butt kicked in more climate change threads than I care to enumerate and has basically had to give up, having realised that all the arguments in favour of CC which he believed in so strongly are actually, in the cold light of day, garbage. Like most eco-loons, chimp_ninja is in fact a "watermelon" - that is, green on the outside but red on the inside. He's here to spout leftist drivel and basically show us all how sincerely he beleives he has the moral high ground when he's really just an ignorant twat.
 
2013-10-25 10:48:40 AM  

brobdiggy: Also, as some people have pointed out, the article discusses giving aid to people in African countries, not welfare-poor in the US.

Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things.  Money will go a lot further in Uganda.  Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.

2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year.  Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.


Actually that's only true if the number of welfare queens is very much higher than the number of working poor here in the U.S.

Probably a waste of time, but I'll ask anyway:  you got a citation for that?

You've also got to quantify how much is "some" money...you give a lower class working stiff in the US a hundred buck, ya...no shiat he'll still be working class next year, unless he hits the lottery.
 
2013-10-25 10:49:10 AM  

brandied: There are some many view of this, so I decided to go full Maslow on this.

People in third world countries are struggling just to have their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing met.  Perhaps they really understand the need to use money to get those fundamental survival needs met.

Folks in America have their basic needs met - often through working the welfare system.  They don't really understand the meaning of true poverty.  Thus, figuring they can get their food, shelter, and clothing provided, they misuse money, not realizing that this is a possible means of improving their situation rather than just getting some wants fulfilled.

Some folks really need the assistance of welfare just to get back on their feet.  Many folks just work the system to fund their lifestyle.


Oh bullshiat. Have you ever been on welfare? 1: Most people feel ashamed to be on welfare. You know, because Republican talking points have turned them into lazy assholes who just want everyone's money. 2: Its a huge pain in the ass to get welfare (Think DMV but 10 times worse), and I can't imagine anyone who didn't need it wouldn't be on welfare otherwise. This is made clear by the low amount of fraud, or undesirables/druggies who are on welfare. Which is why programs to make people take drug tests before getting on welfare, usually cost more money than they save. 3: I live in a liberal state, but even here they check up on you regularly to make sure you have a job/your income hasn't changed etc. Eventually you will be thrown out of the system if you don't have a job.

Granted, I don't think welfare alone is an answer and would personally like to see less people on welfare. That requires good paying jobs, an education system that isn't embarrassingly inadequate (We pay more money per child than anyone else. Yet most graduates of high school often graduate not ready for the world or college), and a society that values people for who they are rather than how much money they have. We are getting our asses handed to us by the likes of Finland and South Korea. Both have great education systems, and low and behold better social mobility. Meaning they don't stay at the bottom if they start at the bottom.

In America, if you aren't born into a family that is either well to do middle class, or rich, your opportunities to succeed are few.

Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


Uh, you do know that in most cases you have to have a job to receive welfare right? These are people who work 30 to 40 hours a week, and yet still can't afford to get ahead or eat healthy enough.
 
2013-10-25 10:49:23 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?

What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.

Or halving welfare.  The argument goes both ways.

Regardless though, the dilemma I described wasn't an unreasonable one.  And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.


No, the argument doesn't go both ways.  Either society wants people to be able to earn a living wage and/or have their basic needs covered or it doesn't.  You are arguing the latter.  We have tried this already.  The late 1800s (Gilded Age) and early 1900s (robber barons) which were defined in large part by vast industrialization with a large number of workers in factories working for near nothing wages, in horribly dangerous environments both from machines and from fumes, smoke, and hazardous chemicals, with absolutely no protections under the law whatsoever.  It was a very bad time to be a worker in this country.  It was a great time to be one of the few factory owners.  Very few people would advocate that we go back to that sort of environment and say that it's a good thing with a straight face, you among them.
 
2013-10-25 10:50:12 AM  
Give everyone over 18 $10K/year and get rid of the bureaucracy.
 
2013-10-25 10:51:50 AM  

brobdiggy: Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things. Money will go a lot further in Uganda. Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.


Agreed. Euthanasia seems to be a much better option.
 
2013-10-25 10:51:58 AM  
shiny wheels and a  gold tooth
 
2013-10-25 10:52:10 AM  

BMFPitt: DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty?

That's called college.

Apparently you have no concept of what true poverty is.


Yeah, it is called college to someone who was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple. The difference that you seem to be missing is, a college kid can always GO HOME. What the fark is wrong with ou animals who think that someone needs to be emaciated with a vulture flying over their heads before anyone should lift a finger to assist them? Where do they make you assholes?
 
2013-10-25 10:52:21 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: The problem is that libs don't like to talk about those people; they get wierd, accusatory and screechy.


THE GREAT NAME:  First I wondered why this young boy would aid a theif, attempt to injure, deface property, and finally insult a state worker who was simply doing his job. Then I saw the skin colour of the people he grew up around.

Yeah, the problem is that "libs" don't want to talk about poverty and race.  If only poor minorities were treated as well as you treat them, which isn't hateful or "weird, accusatory, and screechy" at all.
 
2013-10-25 10:53:04 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?


You send me some whacked out blog that links to the DAILY CALLER? The website that asked the burning question that's on all of our minds..."Why doesn't the President have any white dogs"?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political-commentary-goe s -the-do?lite">http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political- commentary-goes -the-do?lite=

THAT Daily Caller?

/Stopped reading right there


How about Forbes?   http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-201 3 -welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-tra de
Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour

Aside from that, I personally know someone in this exact system.  She sat down, did the math, and decided *not* to get a job.  In fact, I encouraged her - in the same way I would encourage my parents to deduct their new A/C that qualified for some energy credit a few years back.  And it's been working out just fine for her since.
 
2013-10-25 10:53:41 AM  

xalres: Dude, the system is rigged. The only people who can un-rig it? Bought and paid for by the people who benefit from it.


The system is rigged but that is a completely different conversation.  "the system" is a very broad term.  So for you to oppose to it is also a very broad statement.  By playing the system I merely mean do everything to prevent an all out revolution.  If you destroy it and start over the same thing will just happen again, so why not figure out how to deal with it now?
 
2013-10-25 10:55:07 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: In case anybody is wondering why chimp_ninja is so whiny, it's because he's had his butt kicked in more climate change threads than I care to enumerate and has basically had to give up, having realised that all the arguments in favour of CC which he believed in so strongly are actually, in the cold light of day, garbage.


Feel free to provide links, so people can judge the content of my posts for themselves.  Since you butted in about race/poverty, I provided quotes from you making racist comments (and you admitting that you're a troll), with links so people can judge the context themselves.  You know, evidence for my claims.

I'm wacky like that.
 
2013-10-25 10:55:25 AM  

chimp_ninja: teenytinycornteeth: Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.

Let's not pretend that tlenon or THE GREAT NAME bother to thinly veil the fact that they're human garbage.

Well, assholes playing a character who is human garbage, at least.


I'm not going to lie. I've been away from Fark, in the loving arms of other websites for some time and i've lost my ability to accurately and quickly discern who is worth arguing with and who isn't.
 
2013-10-25 10:56:39 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: You're building a strawman....

I'm not saying that the minimum wage is too low, or too high.  I'm saying that it is an ARTIFICIAL limit.   The value of many minimum wage workers is actually *less* than minimum wage.  That is the entire point of a minimum wage, to artificially increase wages.

I'm not for or against minimum wage laws.  I'm saying it's silly to blame a company for not paying people 'enough' when they are both complying with and exceeding the minimum wage.  The average 'hourly' Walmart employee earns $9.40 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/costco-fast-food-strike s/ ) well above the minimum wage.  And that excludes all of their salary employees who typically earn significantly more.


Yes, I know exactly what you're saying: that we should remove restrictions (minimum wage) and let corporations drive wages down even further than they already are, and that this would somehow benefit society in some way.  From the article I linked early, Walmart employs over a million workers, hundreds of thousands of which are subsidized by the federal government because their pay isn't high enough for them to get by.  Either you believe as I do that it would be better that the "artificial limit" be raised so that the federal government ie taxpayers didn't have to make up the difference, or you believe that it's good that it is the case that this is the reality.  Or the third option is that you believe we should both remove the "artificial limit" AND remove the federal safety net and let the free market sort it out.  Which it will do by creating a dystopian hellscape for a large majority of us hearkening back to the days of the robber barons and Gilded Age.
 
2013-10-25 10:57:20 AM  
Fark_Guy_Rob:
How about Forbes?
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...

Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour

Aside from that, I personally know someone in this exact system. She sat down, did the math, and decided *not* to get a job. In fact, I encouraged her - in the same way I would encourage my parents to deduct their new A/C that qualified for some energy credit a few years back. And it's been working out just fine for her since.



Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.
 
2013-10-25 10:59:47 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?

What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.

Or halving welfare.  The argument goes both ways.

Regardless though, the dilemma I described wasn't an unreasonable one.  And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

No, the argument doesn't go both ways.  Either society wants people to be able to earn a living wage and/or have their basic needs covered or it doesn't.  You are arguing the latter.  We have tried this already.  The late 1800s (Gilded Age) and early 1900s (robber barons) which were defined in large part by vast industrialization with a large number of workers in factories working for near nothing wages, in horribly dangerous environments both from machines and from fumes, smoke, and hazardous chemicals, with absolutely no protections under the law whatsoever.  It was a very ba ...


I'm absolutely not arguing the former *or* the latter.  I haven't given an opinion on how things *should* be, I've only stated 'facts' as I understand them, supported by data I've linked to.

I've claimed that the value of someone's time at work is defined by what someone will pay them.  Generally speaking, that is how we value all things.  Fair-market value and all that jazz.
I've claimed that minimum wage laws exist because some people's time at work is worth very little and our society feels they should be taken care of.
I've claimed that low-income employees benefit from welfare, not Walmart.
I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.
I've claimed that Walmart pays *more* than the federal minimum wage.

I've expressed some opinions too, like not being able to fault someone for not working when they could get more staying home.  Or not faulting Walmart for paying people what people are willing to work for.  I think it makes sense, but it's just my opinion.

Raising the minimum wage would encourage people who currently an equivalent wage to work.  So would reducing welfare benefits.  That's my last claim.  I'm not saying we *should* do either of those things; just that they are effectively the same.
 
2013-10-25 11:00:21 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.


Applebee's is some fine dining.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-10-25 11:01:29 AM  

Carn: Yes, I know exactly what you're saying: that we should remove restrictions (minimum wage) and let corporations drive wages down even further than they already are, and that this would somehow benefit society in some way.


Well duh... It would clearly make poor people even that much more poor thus growing the middle class by lowering the bar.  Ta-Da!  Economy fixed.
 
2013-10-25 11:02:50 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob:
How about Forbes?
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...

Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour

Aside from that, I personally know someone in this exact system. She sat down, did the math, and decided *not* to get a job. In fact, I encouraged her - in the same way I would encourage my parents to deduct their new A/C that qualified for some energy credit a few years back. And it's been working out just fine for her since.


Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.


First - you objected to my blog link.

Now I've given you Forbes, an actual study, and my own personal experience.
Now you're upset that I include my own personal experience in my response, while entirely ignoring the Forbes article and the study, that you requested.

You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalalala'.

If you have MORE compelling evidence to the contrary, by all means, provide it.  Otherwise, concede the point.
 
2013-10-25 11:02:57 AM  
Oh yeah?  Try that in 'Merica!!
 
2013-10-25 11:03:27 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: BMFPitt: DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty?

That's called college.

Apparently you have no concept of what true poverty is.

Yeah, it is called college to someone who was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple. The difference that you seem to be missing is, a college kid can always GO HOME. What the fark is wrong with ou animals who think that someone needs to be emaciated with a vulture flying over their heads before anyone should lift a finger to assist them? Where do they make you assholes?


It's a coping mechanism to help with the guilt they feel for not caring about or helping the impoverished in their own neighborhoods. "Pah, they're not  really poor. They have a refrigerator for God's sake!"

Either that or they're sociopaths.
 
2013-10-25 11:04:42 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: You're building a strawman....

I'm not saying that the minimum wage is too low, or too high.  I'm saying that it is an ARTIFICIAL limit.   The value of many minimum wage workers is actually *less* than minimum wage.  That is the entire point of a minimum wage, to artificially increase wages.

I'm not for or against minimum wage laws.  I'm saying it's silly to blame a company for not paying people 'enough' when they are both complying with and exceeding the minimum wage.  The average 'hourly' Walmart employee earns $9.40 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/costco-fast-food-strike s/ ) well above the minimum wage.  And that excludes all of their salary employees who typically earn significantly more.

Yes, I know exactly what you're saying: that we should remove restrictions (minimum wage) and let corporations drive wages down even further than they already are, and that this would somehow benefit society in some way.  From the article I linked early, Walmart employs over a million workers, hundreds of thousands of which are subsidized by the federal government because their pay isn't high enough for them to get by.  Either you believe as I do that it would be better that the "artificial limit" be raised so that the federal government ie taxpayers didn't have to make up the difference, or you believe that it's good that it is the case that this is the reality.  Or the third option is that you believe we should both remove the "artificial limit" AND remove the federal safety net and let the free market sort it out.  Which it will do by creating a dystopian hellscape for a large majority of us hearkening back to the days of the robber barons and Gilded Age.


I have said absolutely none of that.....you're being silly.

I'll gladly debate my stances and I'm open to changing my opinions....but, I really don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-10-25 11:05:30 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm absolutely not arguing the former *or* the latter.  I haven't given an opinion on how things *should* be, I've only stated 'facts' as I understand them, supported by data I've linked to.

I've claimed that the value of someone's time at work is defined by what someone will pay them.  Generally speaking, that is how we value all things.  Fair-market value and all that jazz.
I've claimed that minimum wage laws exist because some people's time at work is worth very little and our society feels they should be taken care of.
I've claimed that low-income employees benefit from welfare, not Walmart.
I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.
I've claimed that Walmart pays *more* than the federal minimum wage.

I've expressed some opinions too, like not being able to fault someone for not working when they could get more staying home.  Or not faulting Walmart for paying people what people are willing to work for.  I think it makes sense, but it's just my opinion.

Raising the minimum wage would encourage people who currently an equivalent wage to work.  So would reducing welfare benefits.  That's my last claim.  I'm not saying we *should* do either of those things; just that they are effectively the same.


So, you're a sociopath.  Now that we've identified the problem, you can work on correcting it.  No sane person would argue that raising the minimum wage and reducing welfare are effectively the same.  The former gives a lot of American workers a hell of a lot better chance of moving up the economic ladder.  The latter hurts people, possibly results in deaths but who can say exactly how many.  You're going with the "bu bu bu BOOOTSTRAPS!" argument that lowering welfare will result in people bootstrapping themselves into gainful employment at such wondrous places as Walmart, but as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, Walmart won't pay them enough to survive on their own.
 
2013-10-25 11:05:58 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.


Doesn't make them not true.

Bob: "Hi, DROxINxTHExWIND. It's raining outside!"
Betty: "Yeah, it's really coming down!"
Joe: "Yeah. I'm soaking wet!"

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Sheesh. All these 'personal anecdotes'!"
 
2013-10-25 11:06:19 AM  
Some people are poor because they cannot manage money well.
Giving money to someone who cannot manage it well will result in it being squandered.
Therefore...
Giving some poor people money will result in it being squandered.
 
2013-10-25 11:07:30 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.


In many situations, n=1 is sufficient data if it illustrates a fundamental flaw or incentives problem in the system, as his anecdote does. There is value in examining both representative and egregious cases in these public policy discussions.
 
2013-10-25 11:08:55 AM  

fredklein: DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.

Doesn't make them not true.

Bob: "Hi, DROxINxTHExWIND. It's raining outside!"
Betty: "Yeah, it's really coming down!"
Joe: "Yeah. I'm soaking wet!"

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Sheesh. All these 'personal anecdotes'!"


A better example:

Carn: "It's raining outside"
fredklein: "It's raining everywhere!"
 
2013-10-25 11:09:09 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.


You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.
 
2013-10-25 11:09:32 AM  
In an earlier comment, I mentioned that libs don't like to talk about the undeserving (unless rich). chimp_ninja has graced us with a comment, so lets take a look and note whether he talks about about the undeserving. Here's his comment:

 chimp_ninja:
Yeah, the problem is that "libs" don't want to talk about poverty and race.  If only poor minorities were treated as well as you treat them, which isn't hateful or "weird, accusatory, and screechy" at all.
 
No mention of the undeserving there, then. But let's look again, more closely:


..."libs" don't want to talk about poverty and race...

Now, obviously chimp is using sarcasm, because he still thinks that's sort-of grown up and sophisticated. But the really interesting thing is that in attempting to lampoon my comment by repeating it in a sarcastic tone, he still could not prevent his subconcious from modifying it. So, out with the "underserving" qualification I used (and which I explained perfectly eloquantly at the time) and instead the comment is changed to be about all the poor. Why? Two reasons:
1. Because this is the only fight he can win - it's easy to criticise people who hate the poor because such people are obviously unreasonable (but they also basically don't exist)
2. c_n is pretty much a waste of space himself, affluent but without having put in the hard graft to deserve it. He probebly does naff all for others, doesn't tip and regularly skips rounds.

All in all, c_n is simply proving my point - which is that libs are terrified of talking about the undeserving in society except in the top 1% (now 0.1% - obviously a few libs in the 1% but not the 0.1% got edgy after all the banging on about one percenters in the media lately).
 
2013-10-25 11:09:39 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.

[many citations needed]


/many
 
2013-10-25 11:10:47 AM  
You keep feeding the poor.
And they will keep breeding the poor.
 
2013-10-25 11:11:54 AM  

bbfreak: brandied: There are some many view of this, so I decided to go full Maslow on this.
....
Uh, you do know that in most cases you have to have a job to receive welfare right? These are people who work 30 to 40 hours a week, and yet still can't afford to get ahead or eat healthy enough.


I'm sorry, I don't specifically mean 'welfare', I'm generally referring to 'welfare programs' that would include things like food stamps,

'(1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the post-1996 cash welfare program; (2) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps; (3) Medicaid; (4) housing assistance; (5) utilities assistance; (6) the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), and (7) the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) '

I'm not trying to imply that individual factors aren't considered, or that 'welfare' *always* pays better than working.  But in a lot of places, for a lot of people, particularly single parents, it can make sense to not work.  And, given the choice, I'd gladly take government assistance over working hard; provided the compensation is roughly the same.
 
2013-10-25 11:12:16 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: farkdd: So what happens when conservatives want to (a) not give any money to poor people and (b) reduce spending on education, health care, social security, etc. so the top 0.1% can get another tax break?

What if sometimes (and I only mean sometimes) doing something like this would actually help the poor? What would be your moral view then?


If trickle-down economics didn't have 30+ years of proof invalidating the theory, then sure. I mean, if giving rich people more and more money actually ended up raising the standard of living for all -- instead of, you know, the simpler explanation that rich people just want more money and made up a B.S. reason to get you to give it to them -- then I'd be for it. But history (along with common sense) has shown us that what made America different and more successful than any other system throughout history was having a strong middle class that could actually afford to buy stuff. A lot of the money ends up with rich people anyway, because if the middle class shares in the productivity gains (which stopped happening about 30 years ago when all the gains started going to the top 0.1%), they will spend that money on iPods and cars, and rich people will get richer.

If, on the other hand, you go with the theory of give all the money to a few ultra-wealthy people -- the theory that predominated throughout the Dark Ages with lords and serfs, and throughout every druglord hellhole country on Earth today -- that disparity gets wider and wider. There is no way to "work hard" and catch up with a rich guy earning 100x my salary on dividends and capital gains, AND he pays a lower rate in taxes than I do! The 0.1% will accumulate more and more, at the expense of everyone else. And rich people can only buy SO many iPhones and cars -- that's not what drives our "consumer-driven" economy. A thousand rich people can buy 10 iPhones each I guess, great. But 100 million middle-class workers doing well enough can buy 100 million iPhones. Henry Ford understood this concept, and paid his factory workers enough to buy the cars they were helping to produce. It was a win-win, and made Henry Ford very rich.
 
2013-10-25 11:12:31 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: How about Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-201 3 -welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/
On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States

Here is the study that prompted the articles...
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-tra de
Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour


Just provide the Cato paper, then.  The other two are just summaries, which makes it look like three sources instead of one.  And understand that Cato has a strong libertarian lean.  (They advertise this-- promoting libertarianism is their avowed reason for existing.)

Then read some of the rebuttals to the Tanner/Hughes study, notably that they assume that every family receiving federal assistance simultaneously qualifies for every conceivable benefits program.  Quoting from CBPP, which has been cited and awarded many times over for non-partisan, accurate analysis:

"Cato ignores the fact that low-income working families are eligible for, and receive, assistance through programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, and WIC.  When considering the assistance that low-income working families receive, Cato assumes they receive none of these benefits and only get help from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit."

In other words, in many circumstances you can work and receive benefits, since minimum wage wouldn't boost you past the poverty line.  So logically, you'd choose to work.  Also, Cato overestimates the additive nature of the benefits, which is how they produce such ridiculously high inflows of money:

"When adding up the benefits that jobless families receive, Cato assumes that these families all receive TANF, housing assistance, and WIC despite the fact that very few such families would receive all of these benefits.

Consider TANF. Due to changes that states made in their welfare programs after the 1996 federal welfare law was enacted, very few families receive TANF cash assistance and those that do often work or participate in employment programs and are subject to time limits on their receipt of assistance.

Nationally, for every 100 families in poverty, just 27 families receive TANF cash assistance.[5] In eight states, fewer than ten of every 100 families in poverty receive TANF. In most states, families must have incomes well below the poverty line to receive TANF. Even among those families with incomes low enough to meet their state's eligibility criteria, just one-third receive assistance, according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services.[6]

Nor do families typically receive TANF for very long. In fiscal year 2010, 14 years after the advent of time limits, 60 percent of adults receiving TANF had accumulated 24 months or less on their 60-month lifetime limit.[7]

Cato's report doesn't just overstate TANF's availability. Cato's own data show that just 16 percent of families receiving TANF also receive housing assistance. Yet, Cato assumes that in most states families have ready access to both types of assistance.

Cato also assumes that jobless families receive WIC for two children. While many jobless families may receive WIC at some point, it is not a long-term support. WIC is only available to low-income pregnant women, postpartum and breastfeeding women, infants, and children under the age of 5. In 2010, fewer than one in four individuals (adults and children) receiving TANF also received WIC."


Cato is creating a false comparison where benefits are inflated for non-workers, and nearly eliminated for poverty-line workers.  Whether that was deliberate or careless is an exercise for the reader.
 
2013-10-25 11:14:08 AM  

TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.


I'm ugly.  The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic.  In all seriousness, I would feel no shame.  These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them.  If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.
 
2013-10-25 11:16:50 AM  

Carn: fredklein: DROxINxTHExWIND: Awww shiat. Here come the personal anecdotes.

Doesn't make them not true.

Bob: "Hi, DROxINxTHExWIND. It's raining outside!"
Betty: "Yeah, it's really coming down!"
Joe: "Yeah. I'm soaking wet!"

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Sheesh. All these 'personal anecdotes'!"

A better example:

Carn: "It's raining outside"
fredklein: "It's raining everywhere!"


Exactly... except for the fact that no one is claiming that ALL people on welfare are cheats. Just that SOME are.

Carn: "It's raining outside"
fredklein: "This is the Nth report of rain I've gotten, from all different places around the country. It's raining lot's of places!"
 
2013-10-25 11:16:50 AM  
9  out of 10 times it's A or something similar.  This author found the one.
 
2013-10-25 11:17:49 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm absolutely not arguing the former *or* the latter.  I haven't given an opinion on how things *should* be, I've only stated 'facts' as I understand them, supported by data I've linked to.

I've claimed that the value of someone's time at work is defined by what someone will pay them.  Generally speaking, that is how we value all things.  Fair-market value and all that jazz.
I've claimed that minimum wage laws exist because some people's time at work is worth very little and our society feels they should be taken care of.
I've claimed that low-income employees benefit from welfare, not Walmart.
I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.
I've claimed that Walmart pays *more* than the federal minimum wage.

I've expressed some opinions too, like not being able to fault someone for not working when they could get more staying home.  Or not faulting Walmart for paying people what people are willing to work for.  I think it makes sense, but it's just my opinion.

Raising the minimum wage would encourage people who currently an equivalent wage to work.  So would reducing welfare benefits.  That's my last claim.  I'm not saying we *should* do either of those things; just that they are effectively the same.

So, you're a sociopath.  Now that we've identified the problem, you can work on correcting it.  No sane person would argue that raising the minimum wage and reducing welfare are effectively the same.  The former gives a lot of American workers a hell of a lot better chance of moving up the economic ladder.  The latter hurts people, possibly results in deaths but who can say exactly how many.  You're going with the "bu bu bu BOOOTSTRAPS!" argument that lowering welfare will result in people bootstrapping themselves into gainful employment at such wondrous places as Walmart, but as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, Walmart won't pay them enough to survive on their own.


I'm afraid I'm going to stop responding to you.  You aren't replying to my comments, you are replying to a fictional adversary with unreasonable beliefs that you want to prove wrong.  This is my last attempt.....

Increasing the minimum wage would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.
Decreasing welfare benefits would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.

In that context, either option produces the same result.   IN THAT CONTEXT.

I'm not for or against either of them.  I'm just saying that either approach accomplishes the same thing.  Your suggestion is not the only reasonable response to the situation.
 
2013-10-25 11:20:43 AM  

teenytinycornteeth: zeroman987: jshine: teenytinycornteeth: tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....

You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.

Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.

Then he should shut his mouth about Chicago. Omaha is a freaking pit and I wouldn't move there even if you gave me a 20% raise.

Oh btw, for the price of a two bedroom condo in the area where cabrini green used to be, you could get a nice house in Omaha.

Well right, that was sort of my point.  Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.


Hey, I used to take the bus in front of Cabrini Green years ago when it was up and the experience was mildly scary (worse than other subsidized housing in Chicago). Anyway I was surpised Omaha's OP didnt get more hits because my first thought on the headline was "why havent all welfare recipients bootstrapped their way out of poverty if this is true for the US?"

I know welfare and other public assistance programs in the states give paltry amounts, but in our culture cash contributions to poor peope usually goes to immediate needs like bills, food, medical care etc. i dont blame them for that. They are used to living day to day and having most of their needs go unserved. Concepts like investment seem like more of a rich/educated person's concept, so at the very least we should be pairing our cash contributions to poor people with education.
I have been poor and have managed my money badly (it's difficult to pass up earthy comforts when you have little), but at least education helped me get out of that cylce.
 
2013-10-25 11:22:47 AM  
I do believe "the system" needs to operate in a way that if people do go to school, get a job and work hard, and not waste all their money on hookers & blow, then they should be able to achieve a decent middle-class lifestyle. Maybe lower middle-class, maybe they can't afford cable TV and iPhones just because all the ads say everyone should, but not worried about putting food on the table every day.

Now, if "the system" does not allow that -- if there are not enough jobs for millions of people, and the jobs that are there for tens of millions more don't pay enough to stay out of poverty anyway -- then you can expect lots of people to say "the hell with this" and lounge around drinking beer.

I would prefer a system where people who want to work can make enough to be middle class. Yeah, those working as janitors and burger flippers will be lower middle class and will give up some things -- but society needs those jobs too if you want to have clean toilets and burgers available for you to eat at McDonald's. We can't just say "they should get a better job!" when what you mean is "NO ONE can live on those jobs so NO ONE should do them!" OK, fine, get rid of all those jobs, tear down all the fast food joints. Now instead of having only ten million fewer jobs than people looking for jobs, we have fifty million fewer jobs and all those people are making zero, which means either (a) you are paying for them through taxes AND all the restrooms are filthy, or (b) eventually there will be a revolution and all the money will truly be "redistributed."
 
2013-10-25 11:24:23 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.

I'm ugly.  The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic.  In all seriousness, I would feel no shame.  These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them.  If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.


Sure, but the stigma that people put on it is crazy.  Look at this forum and any other forum/facebook that starts talking about welfare.  Everyone assumes you are scamming the system because of the "Welfare queens" that was hyped so much but was such a small fraction but when you live in a complete red county they all asume the worst without knowing.
 
2013-10-25 11:25:10 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm ugly. The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic. In all seriousness, I would feel no shame. These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them. If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.


There is a legitimate place for shame. Shame aligns cultural incentives toward getting people off of public assistance when possible. It is impossible to effectively police a program with miliions of people in millions of different, ever-changing financial situations from the top down through enforcement. Shame provides a second, more comprehensive check on the system by encouraging people to police themselves. The problem is progressives want people to be supported AND feel no shame about it. They want everything to be anonymous and easy and remove all sources of potential embarrassment. All of this aligns incentives the wrong way and encourages dependence and abuse.
 
2013-10-25 11:25:42 AM  

trappedspirit: Fark_Guy_Rob: I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.

[many citations needed]

/many


I've provided a link to a recent study.  By Fark standards that is pretty good.  Thus far, only one person (chimp_nina) has acknowledged it at all.  He raises good points, and many of them are addressed by the author's here:   http://www.cato.org/blog/work-vs-welfare-trade-response-critics

I haven't had time to actually read/process all of what chimp_ninja has written, and read the responses in the above link, and decide how exactly I feel about the issue.  Really though, it's not unreasonable to say that FOR AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE, not working pays as much as a minimum wage job, in the United States.  The question is really just a mater of what percentage.  Given that almost all of the needs-tested benefits consider income and dependents, while minimum wage does not scale up for dependents....

I also understand/acknowledge that working doesn't preclude benefits.  It's not an either or.

Still, it's hard to argue that a full-time job at minimum wage is in the best interest of a single mother with six children.
 
2013-10-25 11:26:36 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm sorry, I don't specifically mean 'welfare', I'm generally referring to 'welfare programs' that would include things like food stamps,

'(1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the post-1996 cash welfare program; (2) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps; (3) Medicaid; (4) housing assistance; (5) utilities assistance; (6) the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), and (7) the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) '

I'm not trying to imply that individual factors aren't considered, or that 'welfare' *always* pays better than working. But in a lot of places, for a lot of people, particularly single parents, it can make sense to not work.


Working parents can be eligible for 1 through 7 of your list, as minimum wage doesn't get you over the poverty line except (sometimes) if you live by yourself.  You're creating a false choice where if you work at minimum wage, the Government eliminates all of your benefits.

Also, keep in mind that most minimum wage employees don't end up averaging 40 hours per week despite their best efforts.  They'll almost never go over-- that would entail overtime, and most minimum wage employers do everything they can to avoid overtime.  But if there's a slow season?  Hours get cut.  You need a sick day?  You're not being paid that day.  Get assigned a graveyard shift at the last minute and you can't arrange child care?  Someone else can work it, no need to pay you that day.  Etc.

So $14,500 is an overestimate of what their gross income will be.
 
2013-10-25 11:28:35 AM  

TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.

I'm ugly.  The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic.  In all seriousness, I would feel no shame.  These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them.  If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.

Sure, but the stigma that people put on it is crazy.  Look at this forum and any other forum/facebook that starts talking about welfare.  Everyone assumes you are scamming the system because of the "Welfare queens" that was hyped so much but was such a small fraction but when you live in a complete red county they all asume the worst without knowing.


Sorry - you are right; and I don't mean to trivialize the social burden.  I do know there are a lot of people who would feel bad collecting benefits.  I don't think I'm one of them, but at the same time, it's hard to speculate how I would actually feel until in that position.  I can't imagine caring *enough* to let it impact my decision on using/applying for a benefit.

At the same time, I probably wouldn't mention it on a first date either.
 
2013-10-25 11:33:29 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Really though, it's not unreasonable to say that FOR AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE, not working pays as much as a minimum wage job, in the United States. The question is really just a mater of what percentage. Given that almost all of the needs-tested benefits consider income and dependents, while minimum wage does not scale up for dependents....

I also understand/acknowledge that working doesn't preclude benefits. It's not an either or.

Still, it's hard to argue that a full-time job at minimum wage is in the best interest of a single mother with six children.


Again, the poverty line does scale with the number of dependents.

Now, with six children, it may be the case that arranging child care is so challenging that going on benefits is your only option.  If you have one or two kids, there's a good chance you can convince a relative or good friend to help out.  If you have six, that's a hard sell.

But once they're in school (or the oldest ones start to be able to take care of the youngest ones), you'd be rational to try to work at least part time, because the poverty line for you and six kids is about $35K.  I'm oversimplifying to some extent, but most work income is cumulative with benefits until you start to approach the federal poverty line.
 
2013-10-25 11:33:56 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm afraid I'm going to stop responding to you.  You aren't replying to my comments, you are replying to a fictional adversary with unreasonable beliefs that you want to prove wrong.  This is my last attempt.....

Increasing the minimum wage would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.
Decreasing welfare benefits would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.

In that context, either option produces the same result.   IN THAT CONTEXT.

I'm not for or against either of them.  I'm just saying that either approach accomplishes the same thing.   Your suggestion is not the only reasonable response to the situation.


You're saying, as above, and as you did before, that these two things are equivalent, while ignoring all other factors, which is an intellectually worthless statement.  Sure, we could decrease welfare benefits, and it will be really bad for a lot of people, possibly resulting them into choosing to become members of the working poor instead of plain old poor, but nothing is gained.  Society still has to subsidize these people's lives, however we would have created a situation where it would then be impossible to make ends meet even through combined low-wage earnings and federal assistance.  We have people right now who work at Walmart, get federal assistance, and still are barely able to make ends meet.  If we decrease welfare, how exactly does that help those people?  Ignoring this is what makes your statement worthless.

Please enlighten me then, what else is a reasonable response.  Are you arguing, as it has seemed and I've been responding to, that a "reasonable response" is to decrease welfare?  That's what it sounds like you've been saying, and as I've been responding, that is at best a sociopathic response, not a reasonable one.
 
2013-10-25 11:37:28 AM  

chimp_ninja: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm sorry, I don't specifically mean 'welfare', I'm generally referring to 'welfare programs' that would include things like food stamps,

'(1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the post-1996 cash welfare program; (2) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps; (3) Medicaid; (4) housing assistance; (5) utilities assistance; (6) the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), and (7) the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) '

I'm not trying to imply that individual factors aren't considered, or that 'welfare' *always* pays better than working. But in a lot of places, for a lot of people, particularly single parents, it can make sense to not work.

Working parents can be eligible for 1 through 7 of your list, as minimum wage doesn't get you over the poverty line except (sometimes) if you live by yourself.  You're creating a false choice where if you work at minimum wage, the Government eliminates all of your benefits.

Also, keep in mind that most minimum wage employees don't end up averaging 40 hours per week despite their best efforts.  They'll almost never go over-- that would entail overtime, and most minimum wage employers do everything they can to avoid overtime.  But if there's a slow season?  Hours get cut.  You need a sick day?  You're not being paid that day.  Get assigned a graveyard shift at the last minute and you can't arrange child care?  Someone else can work it, no need to pay you that day.  Etc.

So $14,500 is an overestimate of what their gross income will be.


Agreed, I realized that my posts were implying the 'either/or' nature, but I did write, 'I also understand/acknowledge that working doesn't preclude benefits.  It's not an either or. '

But if getting a paycheck of X reduces your welfare benefits by 'almost X' - and you've got additional costs related to going to work.....while you *could* do both, in certain situations, it doesn't make financial sense.

Single parents really come to mind.  It can cost a small fortune (and a logistics challenge) to get the children some place safe while you attend work.  Throw in transportation costs in getting to work and whatever additional fees (for example, if I'm staying home all day I can cook cheap food....but if I'm working 8 hours + an hour commute + plus dropping the kids off, picking the kids up + plus all the regular parenting crap + dealing with four children as a single parent....I'm going to pick up McDonalds).
 
2013-10-25 11:38:07 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Yeah, it is called college to someone who was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple.


You seem to have been born on third base and thought you were on first.

The difference that you seem to be missing is, a college kid can always GO HOME.

Some can, some can't.  I knew plenty of kids who couldn't afford to go home at all some years.

What the fark is wrong with ou animals who think that someone needs to be emaciated with a vulture flying over their heads before anyone should lift a finger to assist them? Where do they make you assholes?

They apparently make such assholes out of straw in your imagination.

xalres: It's a coping mechanism to help with the guilt they feel for not caring about or helping the impoverished in their own neighborhoods. "Pah, they're not  really poor. They have a refrigerator for God's sake!"


Pretending such things is your coping mechanism to justify not helping poor people and feeling like you do.  By assuming others don't, either.
 
2013-10-25 11:44:06 AM  

vudukungfu: You keep feeding the poor.
And they will keep breeding the poor.


Ah yes. Bumper sticker politics. So much easier than presenting actual policies. The hard part is making them rhyme. The GOP could use heavy thinkers such as yourself.
 
2013-10-25 11:45:06 AM  

Wise_Guy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

When rich people blow money it's generally not on someone else to pay for their mistake.


Except when they blow a LOT of money, and then they need multibillion dollar bailouts.
 
2013-10-25 11:47:44 AM  

BMFPitt: Pretending such things is your coping mechanism to justify not helping poor people and feeling like you do.  By assuming others don't, either.


It's cute that you automatically assume that I've never donated or volunteered. Someone's projecting.

\now's the part where you tell me that donating and volunteering isn't  really helping anybody.
 
2013-10-25 11:52:27 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm afraid I'm going to stop responding to you.  You aren't replying to my comments, you are replying to a fictional adversary with unreasonable beliefs that you want to prove wrong.  This is my last attempt.....

Increasing the minimum wage would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.
Decreasing welfare benefits would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.

In that context, either option produces the same result.   IN THAT CONTEXT.

I'm not for or against either of them.  I'm just saying that either approach accomplishes the same thing.   Your suggestion is not the only reasonable response to the situation.

You're saying, as above, and as you did before, that these two things are equivalent, while ignoring all other factors, which is an intellectually worthless statement.  Sure, we could decrease welfare benefits, and it will be really bad for a lot of people, possibly resulting them into choosing to become members of the working poor instead of plain old poor, but nothing is gained.  Society still has to subsidize these people's lives, however we would have created a situation where it would then be impossible to make ends meet even through combined low-wage earnings and federal assistance.  We have people right now who work at Walmart, get federal assistance, and still are barely able to make ends meet.  If we decrease welfare, how exactly does that help those people?  Ignoring this is what makes your statement worthless.

Please enlighten me then, what else is a reasonable response.  Are you arguing, as it has seemed and I've been responding to, that a "reasonable response" is to decrease welfare?  That's what it sounds like you've been saying, and as I've been responding, that is at best a sociopathic response, not a reasonable one.


You can scroll up and verify; but this was our exchange....

Me:  "Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job."
You: 'What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.'
Me:  'Or halving welfare.  The argument goes both ways.
 '

The 'excellent argument' you are talking about is directly in response to what I wrote.  '...welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job'

You are claiming that this is an excellent argument for doubling the minimum wage.  That is the ONLY justification you gave.  That's it.  'Because welfare recipients make more than an $8 per hour job, we should double minimum wage'.

YOU:  IF X IS GREATER THAN Y - WE SHOULD DOUBLE Y SO THAT Y IS GREATER THAN X
ME:  Umm - or.....WE SHOULD HALVE X SO THAT Y IS GREATER THAN X

By your own words, 'excellent argument' supports cutting benefits exactly as much as increasing the minimum wage....but you only mentioned the part you wanted.  That's exactly the same as saying, 'I think we should double minimum wage' - which is fine.  But it's just an opinion without any supporting argument.  You can't say, 'If I flip a coin, it will be either heads or tails, therefore it will be tails'.  That doesn't make sense, and neither did your statement.
 
2013-10-25 11:55:30 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-10-25 11:57:31 AM  

xalres: It's cute that you automatically assume that I've never donated or volunteered. Someone's projecting.


Yes, that is what I said to you.  Congrats on being able to read and understand.

\now's the part where you tell me that donating and volunteering isn't  really helping anybody.

So do you expect me to play along with your fantasy, or is your brain already autocorrecting this text right now to make that be what it says?
 
2013-10-25 12:07:13 PM  

BMFPitt: xalres: It's cute that you automatically assume that I've never donated or volunteered. Someone's projecting.

Yes, that is what I said to you.  Congrats on being able to read and understand.

\now's the part where you tell me that donating and volunteering isn't  really helping anybody.

So do you expect me to play along with your fantasy, or is your brain already autocorrecting this text right now to make that be what it says?


So what  did you mean by "Pretending such things is your coping mechanism to justify not helping poor people and feeling like you do.  By assuming others don't, either."?

Because to me it implies you think I pretend others using the coping mechanism I described is, in fact, my own coping mechanism to help me cope with my not helping. Maybe if you could be less obtuse people wouldn't misinterpret what you're trying to say.
 
2013-10-25 12:08:32 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: The 'excellent argument' you are talking about is directly in response to what I wrote.  '...welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job'

You are claiming that this is an excellent argument for doubling the minimum wage.  That is the ONLY justification you gave.  That's it.  'Because welfare recipients make more than an $8 per hour job, we should double minimum wage'.

YOU:  IF X IS GREATER THAN Y - WE SHOULD DOUBLE Y SO THAT Y IS GREATER THAN X
ME:  Umm - or.....WE SHOULD HALVE X SO THAT Y IS GREATER THAN X

By your own words, 'excellent argument' supports cutting benefits exactly as much as increasing the minimum wage....but you only mentioned the part you wanted.  That's exactly the same as saying, 'I think we should double minimum wage' - which is fine.  But it's just an opinion without any supporting argument.  You can't say, 'If I flip a coin, it will be either heads or tails, therefore it will be tails'.  That doesn't make sense, and neither did your statement.


Yes, absolutely, ignoring anything else, they are two ways to solve the equation presented.  As I have been trying to argue and you repeatedly fail to acknowledge, they are far from equivalent on the effects that they would have on those concerned and society as a whole.
 
2013-10-25 12:11:06 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: trappedspirit: Fark_Guy_Rob: I've claimed that in many places, many people, can earn more by not working than they can from working.

[many citations needed]

/many

I've provided a link to a recent study.  By Fark standards that is pretty good.  Thus far, only one person (chimp_nina) has acknowledged it at all.  He raises good points, and many of them are addressed by the author's here:   http://www.cato.org/blog/work-vs-welfare-trade-response-critics

I haven't had time to actually read/process all of what chimp_ninja has written, and read the responses in the above link, and decide how exactly I feel about the issue.  Really though, it's not unreasonable to say that FOR AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE, not working pays as much as a minimum wage job, in the United States.  The question is really just a mater of what percentage.  Given that almost all of the needs-tested benefits consider income and dependents, while minimum wage does not scale up for dependents....

I also understand/acknowledge that working doesn't preclude benefits.  It's not an either or.

Still, it's hard to argue that a full-time job at minimum wage is in the best interest of a single mother with six children.


From the study: In 11 states, welfare pays more than the average pre-tax first year wage for a teacher.  In 39 states it pays more than the starting salary for a secretary.  And, in the 3 most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer.

I checked on this in my state last year out of curiosity.  Just wondering what was available, not to enroll.  And it was sub-minimum wage.  I didn't consider that we were so far down the list as to be in the minority.  Early retirement in Massachusetts here I come!
 
2013-10-25 12:12:40 PM  
THE GREAT NAME:

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).

Yes, because it was certainly American liberals who have traditionally clamored to support dictators who promised to fight Communism.

Moron.
 
2013-10-25 12:15:31 PM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm afraid I'm going to stop responding to you. You aren't replying to my comments, you are replying to a fictional adversary with unreasonable beliefs that you want to prove wrong. This is my last attempt.....

Increasing the minimum wage would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.
Decreasing welfare benefits would encourage people to choose work over welfare because people want to maximize their income.

In that context, either option produces the same result. IN THAT CONTEXT.

I'm not for or against either of them. I'm just saying that either approach accomplishes the same thing. Your suggestion is not the only reasonable response to the situation.

You're saying, as above, and as you did before, that these two things are equivalent, while ignoring all other factors, which is an intellectually worthless statement. Sure, we could decrease welfare benefits, and it will be really bad for a lot of people, possibly resulting them into choosing to become members of the working poor instead of plain old poor, but nothing is gained. Society still has to subsidize these people's lives, however we would have created a situation where it would then be impossible to make ends meet even through combined low-wage earnings and federal assistance. We have people right now who work at Walmart, get federal assistance, and still are barely able to make ends meet. If we decrease welfare, how exactly does that help those people? Ignoring this is what makes your statement worthless.

Please enlighten me then, what else is a reasonable response. Are you arguing, as it has seemed and I've been responding to, that a "reasonable response" is to decrease welfare? That's what it sounds like you've been saying, and as I've been responding, that is at best a sociopathic response, not a reasonable one.


How about this - three strikes and your out.  This is a harsh proposal and I understand that, however we are killing a lot of other people in the world and giving those doing the killing a 10% discount at retail stores, having special license plates made, and supporting our troops. Most of the people we eliminate have done nothing to the United States and we need to try out our new toys.   On to the proposal.

If your family has 3 generations and has chosen welfare as the primary income, your family will be considered an enemy of the state and be given the choice to leave or be eliminated.

Well said regarding the subsidizing of those making minimum wage.  It is a point that very few understand or bother to think about.  By shopping at WallMart and other retailers known for paying as little as possible when purchasing an item for 30 cents less a person is actually choosing higher taxes and less income.  That item will end up costing them more than if they went to a respectable retailer.
 
2013-10-25 12:15:34 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-25 12:16:28 PM  
I only spend money on hookers because I support small business women.
 
2013-10-25 12:16:48 PM  

xalres: Because to me it implies you think I pretend others using the coping mechanism I described is, in fact, my own coping mechanism to help me cope with my not helping.


Yes, the second line quote is a subset of that.
 
2013-10-25 12:22:06 PM  

BMFPitt: xalres: Because to me it implies you think I pretend others using the coping mechanism I described is, in fact, my own coping mechanism to help me cope with my not helping.

Yes, the second line quote is a subset of that.


You: "You're just pretending that to cope with your own guilt over not helping poor people."
Me: "You're wrong in your assumption. Here's how I've helped in the past."
You: "That's not what I was saying. Keep living in your fantasy world!"

Dafuq?
 
2013-10-25 12:26:09 PM  
Let's say a perfect social program takes $1.00 of cost and yields $1.00 of benefit.

And let's say that the typical traditional state-run social program yields $0.80 of benefit per $1.00 of cost.

And let's say that traditional private charities, like the ones shipping pallets of food around, yield $0.70 per dollar.

And let's say that this approach yields $0.65 in benefits for every dollar put into it. Obviously, I'm pulling all these numbers out of my ass. But let's assume that this approach turns out to be not  quite as effective as traditional charities and strings-attached welfare programs.

It'd still be worth it just to watch people explosively shiatting their pants at the idea of some poor person getting a cash handout.
 
2013-10-25 12:26:42 PM  

xalres: BMFPitt: xalres: Because to me it implies you think I pretend others using the coping mechanism I described is, in fact, my own coping mechanism to help me cope with my not helping.

Yes, the second line quote is a subset of that.

You: "You're just pretending that to cope with your own guilt over not helping poor people."
Me: "You're wrong in your assumption. Here's how I've helped in the past."
You: "That's not what I was saying. Keep living in your fantasy world!"

Dafuq?


img01.beijing2008.cn
 
2013-10-25 12:34:28 PM  

Visionmn2: How about this - three strikes and your out.  This is a harsh proposal and I understand that, however we are killing a lot of other people in the world and giving those doing the killing a 10% discount at retail stores, having special license plates made, and supporting our troops. Most of the people we eliminate have done nothing to the United States and we need to try out our new toys.   On to the proposal.

If your family has 3 generations and has chosen welfare as the primary income, your family will be considered an enemy of the state and be given the choice to leave or be eliminated.

Well said regarding the subsidizing of those making minimum wage.  It is a point that very few understand or bother to think about.  By shopping at WallMart and other retailers known for paying as little as possible when purchasing an item for 30 cents less a person is actually choosing higher taxes and less income.  That item will end up costing them more than if they went to a respectable retailer.


No, too harsh,  Born into poverty, the cards are all stacked against you.  As per the Henry Ford example that was mentioned earlier, I think the solution is rather simple: ensure that all jobs pay a decent, living wage.  Henry Ford did it by his own will, but the only way to mandate it is through minimum wage law.  It should be more beneficial to work than to live off welfare, but it does not have to be insanely so.  If we have more workers earning more money we will have less people in need of assistance and more money moving in the economy.  We are all paying to make up for low wages whether we like it or not.
 
2013-10-25 12:35:35 PM  

zeroman987: jshine: teenytinycornteeth: tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....

You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.

Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.

Then he should shut his mouth about Chicago. Omaha is a freaking pit and I wouldn't move there even if you gave me a 20% raise.

Oh btw, for the price of a two bedroom condo in the area where cabrini green used to be, you could get a nice house in Omaha.


I had a good giggle at the OP as well.  I mean, if you're going to attempt an insult using a specific example, you really should use an existing example.
 
2013-10-25 12:45:26 PM  

Carn: I think the solution is rather simple: ensure that all jobs pay a decent, living wage.


So why don't you start a business, and pay your employees $100/hour, or whatever you think is "decent".
 
2013-10-25 12:53:20 PM  

knobmaker: THE GREAT NAME:

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).

Yes, because it was certainly American liberals who have traditionally clamored to support dictators who promised to fight Communism.

Moron.


Oddly, that's how I have it farkied!  It just makes sense...
 
2013-10-25 12:54:34 PM  

fredklein: Carn: I think the solution is rather simple: ensure that all jobs pay a decent, living wage.

So why don't you start a business, and pay your employees $100/hour, or whatever you think is "decent".


The concept of a living wage generally pays people enough to afford a minimum standard of living, a bit over the poverty line.  The average estimate currently is right around double the minimum wage or somewhere between $14-15.  That is good enough that people who work will not be in poverty and that is all that's needed.  The argument isn't "everyone should be rich!" (eg your $100/hour) it's "people who work should earn a living wage, not be in poverty, and be able to support themselves."
 
2013-10-25 01:00:53 PM  

fredklein: Carn: I think the solution is rather simple: ensure that all jobs pay a decent, living wage.

So why don't you start a business, and pay your employees $100/hour, or whatever you think is "decent".


Yes, hyperbole. Excellent.

Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes. That way we don't end up in situations where people are either losing buying power for their hard earned cash or harming employers with drastic wage increases once the minimum absolutely NEEDS to go up.

Once a year or so just crunch the numbers and there's your min wage. Hell, it could be done by region. The min wage could go DOWN if cost of living decreases.

NOBODY benefits from an absurdly low min wage. When THAT many people have ZERO extra funds to toss around the economy flounders. This is why I don't trust these supposed economic experts who run the companies. They don't seem to understand that more money floating around the bottom means more money floating to the top. They can't even see their own asses. It's a game of hoarders in that world and they aren't only hurting us peons they are hurting their OWN BOTTOM LINE!!!
 
2013-10-25 01:04:43 PM  
Oh, in the developing world.  Now the headline makes sense.
 
2013-10-25 01:08:04 PM  

Carn: The concept of a living wage generally pays people enough to afford a minimum standard of living, a bit over the poverty line. The average estimate currently is right around double the minimum wage or somewhere between $14-15. That is good enough that people who work will not be in poverty and that is all that's needed. The argument isn't "everyone should be rich!" (eg your $100/hour) it's "people who work should earn a living wage, not be in poverty, and be able to support themselves."


$14-15 an hour is where the minimum wage would be right now if it had been tied to inflation since the 70s.

People who act as if the current min wage is somehow fair and adequate can be dismissed as complete morons. Even if they are "super smart" business clowns running the top companies. In fact it is even worse when guys like that rail on about this because they are HURTING their business and investors in not even the long term. A quarterly profit margin may go up but if you look at the potential gain/loss over even a year or two there will be lost profits.

Like I said... these people are trained to be hoarders. It's mental illness that has been somehow deemed a laudable business practice. How many investors lost their shirts over the economic meltdown? Yet they STILL insist that this is the best way to do things. They are sick and need help.
 
2013-10-25 01:19:36 PM  

TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: TNel: Fark_Guy_Rob: And given the choice, I'd take welfare over a job - even if the job pay 15-20% more.

You say that when you don't have to do it and would never do it.  We were on Wic for a few years and the looks you get from people was pathetic.  I tried to go at odd times because of it.  Then god forbid it took the cashier an extra minute to run the checks because the foot tapping and huffing was just icing on the cake.

I'm ugly.  The looks I get from people all the time is pathetic.  In all seriousness, I would feel no shame.  These programs exist for a reason, collectively our society wants them.  If you qualify, you shouldn't feel bad about it.

Sure, but the stigma that people put on it is crazy.  Look at this forum and any other forum/facebook that starts talking about welfare.  Everyone assumes you are scamming the system because of the "Welfare queens" that was hyped so much but was such a small fraction but when you live in a complete red county they all asume the worst without knowing.


There are 2 main issues w/ SNAPs

1) It varies per year but fraud is around 5-10%; the solution is to find those individuals and brand them as scum that will only receive government issued gruel instead of normal food stamps for X number of years.  The stuff should intentionally be made to taste bad

2) SNAP has no nutritional requirements, force nutritional standards on it
 
2013-10-25 01:22:58 PM  
As for food stamps and other food related assistance...government run big box stores that sell the basic necessities...milk, bread, meat, rice, etc. cut out the ability to spend public assistance on crap food.

Ask any retail clerk how many food stamp users buy crap with their government dollars...chips, twinkles, soda...and then use cash to buy booze and smokes.

Also, I think people receiving benefits should be on mandatory birth control for a year....I love the stories about the single mother of 6 and how she can't make ends meet...here is an idea, don't have 6 kids.

Neither party want to see people suffer and starve...but conservatives are willing to hold people accountable for their actions...have multiple kids while a teenager?...yup, life is going to be hard. Life will be hard for you and your kids...your kids will suffer, but that is your fault, not societies.
 
2013-10-25 01:23:30 PM  

here to help: Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes. That way we don't end up in situations where people are either losing buying power for their hard earned cash or harming employers with drastic wage increases once the minimum absolutely NEEDS to go up.


The funny part is every time that minimum wage has increased was at the same time Democrats controlled the House.  R's can give a rats ass about poor people.
 
2013-10-25 01:42:18 PM  

WhyKnot: As for food stamps and other food related assistance...government run big box stores that sell the basic necessities...milk, bread, meat, rice, etc. cut out the ability to spend public assistance on crap food.

Ask any retail clerk how many food stamp users buy crap with their government dollars...chips, twinkles, soda...and then use cash to buy booze and smokes.

Also, I think people receiving benefits should be on mandatory birth control for a year....I love the stories about the single mother of 6 and how she can't make ends meet...here is an idea, don't have 6 kids.

Neither party want to see people suffer and starve...but conservatives are willing to hold people accountable for their actions...have multiple kids while a teenager?...yup, life is going to be hard. Life will be hard for you and your kids...your kids will suffer, but that is your fault, not societies.


I know that based upon the geography of the country that government run stores wouldn't work, but the ability to use food stamps needs to be similar to WIC, they need to be restricted I certain categories of food.
 
2013-10-25 01:57:17 PM  

xalres: You: "You're just pretending that to cope with your own guilt over not helping poor people."
Me: "You're wrong in your assumption. Here's how I've helped in the past."
You: "That's not what I was saying. Keep living in your fantasy world!"


You seem to be confused by the concept of quotes.  They are meant to be actual things that someone has said, without your own mental filtering added.  Here, check it out using the button provided by Fark.

xalres: It's a coping mechanism to help with the guilt they feel for not caring about or helping the impoverished in their own neighborhoods.

 --  This is you projecting.
BMFPitt:
Pretending such things is your coping mechanism to justify not helping poor people and feeling like you do.  By assuming others don't, either.  --  This is me pointing out that you're projecting.
xalres:
It's cute that you automatically assume that I've never donated or volunteered. Someone's projecting.  --  This is you saying "I know you are but what am I?"
BMFPitt:
Yes, that is what I said to you.  Congrats on being able to read and understand.  --  This is me calling you on your asshattery.
xalres:
Maybe if you could be less obtuse people wouldn't misinterpret what you're trying to say.  --  This is you deflecting.
 
2013-10-25 01:57:35 PM  

TNel: here to help: Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes. That way we don't end up in situations where people are either losing buying power for their hard earned cash or harming employers with drastic wage increases once the minimum absolutely NEEDS to go up.

The funny part is every time that minimum wage has increased was at the same time Democrats controlled the House.  R's can give a rats ass about poor people.


It just drives me so crazy because they SHOULD care about poor people. They may not have as much money individually as the people they represent but there are a F*CKLOAD of them. It doesn't take a damned rocket surgeon to figure out that giving a few million people a dollar that they WILL spend is better than giving one or two guys a couple million dollars that WON'T spend it and will likely take it out of the country.

They are not the financial geniuses they claim to be. Nor are they anywhere close to being theology scholars or experts on crime reduction.

Basically aside from knowing how to run an effective propaganda machine and be a lesson on what a world class asshole looks like they are useless.

Democrats are idiots too but at least they occasionally do stuff that isn't completely evil and counterproductive.
 
2013-10-25 02:06:36 PM  
So are they saying that entitlement recipients in other parts of the world, like the U.S., get their welfare checks with strings attached? Are these millions of people told how they should spend their government handouts?
 
2013-10-25 02:07:32 PM  

BMFPitt: xalres: You: "You're just pretending that to cope with your own guilt over not helping poor people."
Me: "You're wrong in your assumption. Here's how I've helped in the past."
You: "That's not what I was saying. Keep living in your fantasy world!"

You seem to be confused by the concept of quotes.  They are meant to be actual things that someone has said, without your own mental filtering added.  Here, check it out using the button provided by Fark.

xalres: It's a coping mechanism to help with the guilt they feel for not caring about or helping the impoverished in their own neighborhoods.  --  This is you projecting.
BMFPitt: Pretending such things is your coping mechanism to justify not helping poor people and feeling like you do.  By assuming others don't, either.  --  This is me pointing out that you're projecting.
xalres: It's cute that you automatically assume that I've never donated or volunteered. Someone's projecting.  --  This is you saying "I know you are but what am I?"
BMFPitt: Yes, that is what I said to you.  Congrats on being able to read and understand.  --  This is me calling you on your asshattery.
xalres: Maybe if you could be less obtuse people wouldn't misinterpret what you're trying to say.  --  This is you deflecting.


How was I projecting in my initial comment? I was making a statement based on what I've observed from other people. And you think I'm seeing statements that aren't there.
 
2013-10-25 02:09:35 PM  

here to help: Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes. That way we don't end up in situations where people are either losing buying power for their hard earned cash or harming employers with drastic wage increases once the minimum absolutely NEEDS to go up.


Yup.  What's sad is that we already have these sorts of adjustments mapped out nationwide for research purposes.  We know at a time resolution of weeks to a month what the purchasing power of a dollar is at the zip code level, further broken down by the type of purchase.  It would be a button push to say "OK.  Minimum wage was $7.50/hr in rural Kansas in 2009, so a fair equivalent is $______ in NYC in 2013."

WhyKnot: I know that based upon the geography of the country that government run stores wouldn't work, but the ability to use food stamps needs to be similar to WIC, they need to be restricted I certain categories of food.


We already require a pile of symbols and labels on packaged food.  Create a voluntary "SNAP Healthy" logo and restrict its use to foods that meet certain nutritional standards.  Fruit?  Yes.  Vegetables?  Yes.  Nuts?  Yes.  Whole grains?  Yes.  Chicken parts?  Yes.  Fast-food style chicken nuggets?  No.  Soda?  No.  Maybe you also employ a cost threshold.

Start with the basics, and within months, every major food manufacturer would be lining up to get that stamp on their healthy items.
 
2013-10-25 02:51:06 PM  

Loadmaster: So are they saying that entitlement recipients in other parts of the world, like the U.S., get their welfare checks with strings attached? Are these millions of people told how they should spend their government handouts?


Yes. That's how much of welfare is. There are programs for heating costs, food costs, etc. Charity is most often worse. Undesignated welfare money is often so little help that the poor schmuck might just as well go get a pack of cigarettes and a jar of whiskey for the night.
 
2013-10-25 03:01:23 PM  

chimp_ninja: here to help: Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes. That way we don't end up in situations where people are either losing buying power for their hard earned cash or harming employers with drastic wage increases once the minimum absolutely NEEDS to go up.

Yup.  What's sad is that we already have these sorts of adjustments mapped out nationwide for research purposes.  We know at a time resolution of weeks to a month what the purchasing power of a dollar is at the zip code level, further broken down by the type of purchase.  It would be a button push to say "OK.  Minimum wage was $7.50/hr in rural Kansas in 2009, so a fair equivalent is $______ in NYC in 2013."

WhyKnot: I know that based upon the geography of the country that government run stores wouldn't work, but the ability to use food stamps needs to be similar to WIC, they need to be restricted I certain categories of food.

We already require a pile of symbols and labels on packaged food.  Create a voluntary "SNAP Healthy" logo and restrict its use to foods that meet certain nutritional standards.  Fruit?  Yes.  Vegetables?  Yes.  Nuts?  Yes.  Whole grains?  Yes.  Chicken parts?  Yes.  Fast-food style chicken nuggets?  No.  Soda?  No.  Maybe you also employ a cost threshold.

Start with the basics, and within months, every major food manufacturer would be lining up to get that stamp on their healthy items.


But to what end? To further denigrate the dignity of our neighbors? We should do as much as possible to make the SNAP inconspicuous. If anything, there should be no option to opt out of food stamps if you are selling foods. One of the local urban farms here will not accept food stamps "on principle" at their stand. Fresh farmed produce is unavailable to these people out of spite. It is made more unconscionable that they gladly accept subsidies themselves.
 
2013-10-25 03:17:15 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.


Hey, I'm carrying a broken Droid 2 (about half the screen hasn't worked for the last year since it started pouring rain on 4th of July), have a roommate, and wish that I could afford to go out to sit down restaurants with actual waiters for special occasions.

Mind you, I've also paid off about $14K in debt in the last 9 months ($28K to go, and 95% of that is student loans, car, and "Can I have some help making my security deposit?") because I am a boring person who is terrible with money (Note: I live in shiatty rat-infested apartments with roommates so that I don't have to have a budget), but still.

/And the Nexus 5 is my next phone whenever it comes out.  This is just getting old.
 
2013-10-25 03:40:06 PM  

here to help: fredklein: Carn: I think the solution is rather simple: ensure that all jobs pay a decent, living wage.

So why don't you start a business, and pay your employees $100/hour, or whatever you think is "decent".

Yes, hyperbole. Excellent.


Well, if it's 'good' to pay them a little more,then it'll be 'great' to pay them a Lot more. No?? Just think of all that extra money floating around in the economy. And, of course, ignore the fact that companies will go out of business if they need to pay that much for floor-sweepers and burger-makers. Or at least raise their prices by an equivalent amount, thus causing the exact same problem we have now.

Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes.

No, wages "need" to be tied to the workers value as an employee. Do a specialized job that only you can do? Earn a lot. Do a dead-simple task that anyone can do with no training? Earn only a little.

NOBODY benefits from an absurdly low min wage. When THAT many people have ZERO extra funds to toss around the economy flounders.

And when people have a lot of money to 'throw around', prices go up, and the corporations make more money.
 
2013-10-25 03:41:48 PM  

here to help: People who act as if the current min wage is somehow fair and adequate can be dismissed as complete morons.


"Fair and adequate" ... for what, exactly?? Living a life of luxury? Barely being able to buy enough food to survive? For what, exactly??
 
2013-10-25 03:55:02 PM  

Ablejack: chimp_ninja: here to help: Minimum wage NEEDS to be tied to the inflation rate and cost of living indexes. That way we don't end up in situations where people are either losing buying power for their hard earned cash or harming employers with drastic wage increases once the minimum absolutely NEEDS to go up.

Yup.  What's sad is that we already have these sorts of adjustments mapped out nationwide for research purposes.  We know at a time resolution of weeks to a month what the purchasing power of a dollar is at the zip code level, further broken down by the type of purchase.  It would be a button push to say "OK.  Minimum wage was $7.50/hr in rural Kansas in 2009, so a fair equivalent is $______ in NYC in 2013."

WhyKnot: I know that based upon the geography of the country that government run stores wouldn't work, but the ability to use food stamps needs to be similar to WIC, they need to be restricted I certain categories of food.

We already require a pile of symbols and labels on packaged food.  Create a voluntary "SNAP Healthy" logo and restrict its use to foods that meet certain nutritional standards.  Fruit?  Yes.  Vegetables?  Yes.  Nuts?  Yes.  Whole grains?  Yes.  Chicken parts?  Yes.  Fast-food style chicken nuggets?  No.  Soda?  No.  Maybe you also employ a cost threshold.

Start with the basics, and within months, every major food manufacturer would be lining up to get that stamp on their healthy items.

But to what end? To further denigrate the dignity of our neighbors? We should do as much as possible to make the SNAP inconspicuous. If anything, there should be no option to opt out of food stamps if you are selling foods. One of the local urban farms here will not accept food stamps "on principle" at their stand. Fresh farmed produce is unavailable to these people out of spite. It is made more unconscionable that they gladly accept subsidies themselves.


The end is to stop having people on food stamps end up w/ type-2 diabetes.  Qualified food already has WIC stamps on it (or on the shelf next to it), the same thing needs to be done w/ SNAP
 
2013-10-25 03:56:17 PM  

Ablejack: We already require a pile of symbols and labels on packaged food. Create a voluntary "SNAP Healthy" logo and restrict its use to foods that meet certain nutritional standards. Fruit? Yes. Vegetables? Yes. Nuts? Yes. Whole grains? Yes. Chicken parts? Yes. Fast-food style chicken nuggets? No. Soda? No. Maybe you also employ a cost threshold.

Start with the basics, and within months, every major food manufacturer would be lining up to get that stamp on their healthy items.

But to what end? To further denigrate the dignity of our neighbors? We should do as much as possible to make the SNAP inconspicuous. If anything, there should be no option to opt out of food stamps if you are selling foods. One of the local urban farms here will not accept food stamps "on principle" at their stand. Fresh farmed produce is unavailable to these people out of spite. It is made more unconscionable that they gladly accept subsidies themselves.


1) Completely agree that SNAP coupons should be declared legal tender for any food purchase that would qualify.  It's essentially earmarked cash and should be treated as such.

2) I figured "SNAP Healthy" somewhere on the nutrition label wouldn't be a stigma, especially when it would be present on nearly all fruit, vegetables, lean meat, etc.  Everyone would be buying foods with this logo on it, except maybe obese wealthy people.  But you're correct that you needn't invoke SNAP at all-- just a label that communicates "Healthy" might suffice.

3) The reason I think it's important to discourage SNAP funds away from the chicken-nuggets-and-soda section of the store is twofold:
- Poverty is strongly correlated with poor education on nutritional issues.  There are a lot of people who think "Chicken nugget = Chicken thigh", or "Diet Soda = Healthy".  A simple, binary "Healthy/Not" distinction is far from perfect, but you could at least eliminate the worst of the available food options.
- Proper nutrition has a transformative effect on not just physical health, but work/school-related performance.

The goal of SNAP is to get people to a point where they don't need SNAP.  If you're feeding your family Doritos and Mountain Dew for dinner, you're not upholding your half of the social contract, and you're destroying the ROI of the food aid by condemning your family to fatigue, dental problems, diabetes, obesity-related illnesses, etc.

Generally, this replicates the soup kitchen experience.  Someone's happy to give you a warm, healthy meal to help you get back on your feet.  They're not going to hand you a fist full of Snickers bars.
 
2013-10-25 04:00:32 PM  

fredklein: Do a dead-simple task that anyone can do with no training? Earn only a little.


We've tried this experiment.  It ends in virtual serfdom.

You're arguing for going below the existing minimum wage, which is a prescription for having to work 12+ hour days just for basic needs, and no chance to save enough to ever do better.  That isn't the country I want to live in.

As is, if you work full-time for the minimum wage, you probably don't break the poverty line.  Then we all end up paying for you anyway.
 
2013-10-25 04:01:00 PM  

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


I'm all for the "teach a man to fish" thing, but it seems to be stymied by inflated cost of education. Not the "womens' studies at a prestigious private college" kind of education, but things like teaching, science, etc.

I wanted to teach, but even the tuition at the local public university is entirely too high for a teaching degree. Additionally, the student loan payments would be about $500/mo. That's not even taking into account finding a teaching post in a reasonable amount of time.

So, it's back into IT and a local tech school to get the rest of my training and certs.

/not sure where I was going with that
//undercaffeinated slashies
///friday slashies
 
2013-10-25 04:08:11 PM  

ShadowKamui: Ablejack: But to what end? To further denigrate the dignity of our neighbors? We should do as much as possible to make the SNAP inconspicuous. If anything, there should be no option to opt out of food stamps if you are selling foods. One of the local urban farms here will not accept food stamps "on principle" at their stand. Fresh farmed produce is unavailable to these people out of spite. It is made more unconscionable that they gladly accept subsidies themselves.

The end is to stop having people on food stamps end up w/ type-2 diabetes.  Qualified fo ...


Why is it more important to prevent the poor from type-2 diabetes than the rich? With your reasoning we should allow no treats or sugars etc. for anyone. This is only about having control vs. human dignity, plus a dose of punishment for the poor.
 
2013-10-25 04:13:40 PM  

fredklein: here to help: NOBODY benefits from an absurdly low min wage. When THAT many people have ZERO extra funds to toss around the economy flounders.

And when people have a lot of money to 'throw around', prices go up, and the corporations make more money.


Yes, that's what's known as a healthy economy. And it works so long as we can regulate and tax appropriately to keep from a winner take all scenario.
 
2013-10-25 04:13:58 PM  
If you're referring to African 'poor' than answer C. If you're talking about American 'poor' then A.

I'm old enough to realized that my $$ goes a LOT further giving to a destitute family in Mongolia than to a family who lost their house from Katrina.
 
2013-10-25 04:16:21 PM  

pxlboy: I wanted to teach, but even the tuition at the local public university is entirely too high for a teaching degree. Additionally, the student loan payments would be about $500/mo.


That loan payment sounds extremely high to me.  You also wouldn't need to start paying until after you finish with college for most federal loans.

Right now, the interest rate on most federal loans is 3.86%, and the repayment period can be 20-30 years.  You'd need a massive balance for a public university (more than $100K) to get up to $500/month.  It also sounds like you have a little previous credit to bring over, which should reduce your borrowing.

Plus, consider that even in teaching, the after-tax income added by a four-year degree will be more than $500/month.
 
2013-10-25 04:16:32 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: If you're referring to African 'poor' than answer C. If you're talking about American 'poor' then A.

I'm old enough to realized that my $$ goes a LOT further giving to a destitute family in Mongolia than to a family who lost their house from Katrina.


True. It will cost more to care for the US poor than the African poor. This is a good thing.
 
2013-10-25 04:21:08 PM  

chimp_ninja: pxlboy: I wanted to teach, but even the tuition at the local public university is entirely too high for a teaching degree. Additionally, the student loan payments would be about $500/mo.

That loan payment sounds extremely high to me.  You also wouldn't need to start paying until after you finish with college for most federal loans.

Right now, the interest rate on most federal loans is 3.86%, and the repayment period can be 20-30 years.  You'd need a massive balance for a public university (more than $100K) to get up to $500/month.  It also sounds like you have a little previous credit to bring over, which should reduce your borrowing.

Plus, consider that even in teaching, the after-tax income added by a four-year degree will be more than $500/month.


pxlboy, Your local school board may have programs in place to help you acquire the necessary degree. It could mean working for crappy "substitute teaching" or something in the meantime. I understand that's not always a real option.
 
2013-10-25 04:25:40 PM  

Ablejack: chimp_ninja: pxlboy: I wanted to teach, but even the tuition at the local public university is entirely too high for a teaching degree. Additionally, the student loan payments would be about $500/mo.

That loan payment sounds extremely high to me.  You also wouldn't need to start paying until after you finish with college for most federal loans.

Right now, the interest rate on most federal loans is 3.86%, and the repayment period can be 20-30 years.  You'd need a massive balance for a public university (more than $100K) to get up to $500/month.  It also sounds like you have a little previous credit to bring over, which should reduce your borrowing.

Plus, consider that even in teaching, the after-tax income added by a four-year degree will be more than $500/month.

pxlboy, Your local school board may have programs in place to help you acquire the necessary degree. It could mean working for crappy "substitute teaching" or something in the meantime. I understand that's not always a real option.


Indeed. There's also the time involved. I haven't been back to school in about 8 years, so some of my credits may no longer be good. Being in my late 30s makes it impractical as well.

Also, teachers get no respect in this country and can't trust the administrators to back them up when it really matters.

So, as much as I like the idea of teaching, I'm just going to continue in IT while working on the education I should have gotten in my early 20s.
 
2013-10-25 04:45:54 PM  

pxlboy: Ablejack: chimp_ninja: pxlboy: I wanted to teach, but even the tuition at the local public university is entirely too high for a teaching degree. Additionally, the student loan payments would be about $500/mo.

That loan payment sounds extremely high to me.  You also wouldn't need to start paying until after you finish with college for most federal loans.

Right now, the interest rate on most federal loans is 3.86%, and the repayment period can be 20-30 years.  You'd need a massive balance for a public university (more than $100K) to get up to $500/month.  It also sounds like you have a little previous credit to bring over, which should reduce your borrowing.

Plus, consider that even in teaching, the after-tax income added by a four-year degree will be more than $500/month.

pxlboy, Your local school board may have programs in place to help you acquire the necessary degree. It could mean working for crappy "substitute teaching" or something in the meantime. I understand that's not always a real option.

Indeed. There's also the time involved. I haven't been back to school in about 8 years, so some of my credits may no longer be good. Being in my late 30s makes it impractical as well.

Also, teachers get no respect in this country and can't trust the administrators to back them up when it really matters.

So, as much as I like the idea of teaching, I'm just going to continue in IT while working on the education I should have gotten in my early 20s.


Meh, lot's of people get into teaching later in life. But you are right about the lack of respect and often feasible paychecks as well. As you mention there's a real possibility of getting thrown under the bus. There is a faction of politics that think teachers are somehow getting over on everyone. But July and August is tempting... who knows? Maybe someday you'll find a way to if you ever really want to teach. I ( much older) think about it too.
 
2013-10-25 04:58:10 PM  

Ablejack: ShadowKamui: Ablejack: But to what end? To further denigrate the dignity of our neighbors? We should do as much as possible to make the SNAP inconspicuous. If anything, there should be no option to opt out of food stamps if you are selling foods. One of the local urban farms here will not accept food stamps "on principle" at their stand. Fresh farmed produce is unavailable to these people out of spite. It is made more unconscionable that they gladly accept subsidies themselves.

The end is to stop having people on food stamps end up w/ type-2 diabetes.  Qualified fo ...

Why is it more important to prevent the poor from type-2 diabetes than the rich? With your reasoning we should allow no treats or sugars etc. for anyone. This is only about having control vs. human dignity, plus a dose of punishment for the poor.


Because the poor aren't buying it with their own money!

The government should not be buying people sugar snacks and soda instead of rice and milk.
 
2013-10-25 05:06:11 PM  

Ablejack: pxlboy: Ablejack: chimp_ninja: pxlboy: I wanted to teach, but even the tuition at the local public university is entirely too high for a teaching degree. Additionally, the student loan payments would be about $500/mo.

That loan payment sounds extremely high to me.  You also wouldn't need to start paying until after you finish with college for most federal loans.

Right now, the interest rate on most federal loans is 3.86%, and the repayment period can be 20-30 years.  You'd need a massive balance for a public university (more than $100K) to get up to $500/month.  It also sounds like you have a little previous credit to bring over, which should reduce your borrowing.

Plus, consider that even in teaching, the after-tax income added by a four-year degree will be more than $500/month.

pxlboy, Your local school board may have programs in place to help you acquire the necessary degree. It could mean working for crappy "substitute teaching" or something in the meantime. I understand that's not always a real option.

Indeed. There's also the time involved. I haven't been back to school in about 8 years, so some of my credits may no longer be good. Being in my late 30s makes it impractical as well.

Also, teachers get no respect in this country and can't trust the administrators to back them up when it really matters.

So, as much as I like the idea of teaching, I'm just going to continue in IT while working on the education I should have gotten in my early 20s.

Meh, lot's of people get into teaching later in life. But you are right about the lack of respect and often feasible paychecks as well. As you mention there's a real possibility of getting thrown under the bus. There is a faction of politics that think teachers are somehow getting over on everyone. But July and August is tempting... who knows? Maybe someday you'll find a way to if you ever really want to teach. I ( much older) think about it too.


People get frustrated at teachers because they work roughly 20% less (12 weeks off compared to 2 weeks off) on average that the typical American employee, yet demand a salary comparable
to said typical American employee.

That is why people have issues with teachers.
 
2013-10-25 05:26:16 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: If you're referring to African 'poor' than answer C. If you're talking about American 'poor' then A.

I'm old enough to realized that my $$ goes a LOT further giving to a destitute family in Mongolia than to a family who lost their house from Katrina.


Unless you look at the ROI.  What will the Mongolian family's contribution to the world be?  Beets and yak meat?
 
2013-10-25 05:35:15 PM  

WhyKnot: People get frustrated at teachers because they work roughly 20% less (12 weeks off compared to 2 weeks off) on average that the typical American employee, yet demand a salary comparable
to said typical American employee.
That is why people have issues with teachers.


Oh so kinda like Americans hate athletes, judges, pilots, psychologists and librarians. I see. No real reason. Professors also have very similar schedules, make more money and don't really suffer from that frustrated jealousy.
 
2013-10-25 05:47:45 PM  

WhyKnot: Ablejack: Why is it more important to prevent the poor from type-2 diabetes than the rich? With your reasoning we should allow no treats or sugars etc. for anyone. This is only about having control vs. human dignity, plus a dose of punishment for the poor.

Because the poor aren't buying it with their own money!
The government should not be buying people sugar snacks and soda instead of rice and milk.


Yes they are. When the government issues a check to you, it is your own money. At least that's how it has always been. Just like when you get paid, that money is yours, doesn't matter who signed off on it. Besides, the government spends tons of money on snack foods and sugars that we all eat. Basically you have just agreed with me that it's only a control thing. People tend to think that the money they paid in taxes still somehow belongs to them personally. It doesn't. It is spent by policies written by Politicians that we all elect. The woman with three kids that treats them to ice cream Friday night after she gets home from work isn't blowing your money at all. She is adding to the local economy much more than the corporate welfare dollars to the oil and banking industry, to say nothing of the big chunk of taxes spent on the military.
 
2013-10-25 06:32:29 PM  

trappedspirit: SuperNinjaToad: If you're referring to African 'poor' than answer C. If you're talking about American 'poor' then A.

I'm old enough to realized that my $$ goes a LOT further giving to a destitute family in Mongolia than to a family who lost their house from Katrina.

Unless you look at the ROI.  What will the Mongolian family's contribution to the world be?  Beets and yak meat?


Beats whatever's coming out of NOLA.
 
2013-10-25 07:10:18 PM  

here to help: As a poor person every extra penny I have left over gets put into things I need to make money which would make me less poor so I could by more things I need to make more money. However when the absolute MAX I can put aside each month is no more than $30-40 (on a REALLY good month) makes the process grindingly slow and excruciating that by the time I manage to build anything significant it's already out of date (computer stuff).

If I had been given even an extra $50-100 per month or a one time influx of $5000-10,000 a few years back I would be out of poverty and paying taxes by now and even able to pay that money back. Instead I'm a drain and get treated like a freaking leech/criminal just because I'm broke.

In fact if the "job creator" who completely imploded his business despite my best efforts to get him to make RATIONAL decisions with company resources hadn't ripped me off for thousands of dollars I would have been well on my way to making money again.

Also no one will lend to you when you're poor ESPECIALLY when you have the AUDACITY like I did to never go into debt with credit cards, cars, houses, bill collectors, etc.

So glad I listened to all the super responsible people in this world and worked myself into a wheelchair, avoided debt and splurging on useless crap, etc while they ran the entire economy into the ground, made housing completely unaffordable, froze wages and stole every freaking penny they could. I watched my youth slip away as all my friends enjoyed life and I toiled away for scumbags who stabbed me in the back.

I was (and am) one of the most bootstrappy mother frackers you'll ever meet. Where's mine, assholes?!


This.

/no credit card debt
//no mortgage
///no cable, but I do have an internet and a fridge
////working 60+ hours a week for the next two months, and probably after that, so I can pick up the pathetic trickle I've been able to save away.  And if I can manage to, I'll keep going with it til I have enough saved to stop earning for a bit and go to grad school.  Good times.
//My friend started his own business with a $5000 grand loan from his now ex's family.  That's all he needed, $5000.  In the grand scheme of things, trivial.  If his ex's family couldn't do it he never could have saved it.  Going on his third year now with 2 employees. Sigh.
 
2013-10-25 07:57:08 PM  

chimp_ninja: fredklein: Do a dead-simple task that anyone can do with no training? Earn only a little.

We've tried this experiment.  It ends in virtual serfdom.

You're arguing for going below the existing minimum wage, which is a prescription for having to work 12+ hour days just for basic needs, and no chance to save enough to ever do better.


ONLY if you stick to min wage jobs.

Min wage jobs are just that- MINIMUM. "The least possible quantity or degree." You are not meant to keep a min wage job forever. In fact, min wage jobs are usually for those entering the job market- teens and such. The fact that they CANNOT support someone wholly gives people incentive to move up and out of those types of jobs. Get an education. Get promoted. Get a different ('better') job.

As is, if you work full-time for the minimum wage, you probably don't break the poverty line.

Exactly- incentive to get a better job.
 
2013-10-25 08:05:07 PM  

Ablejack: fredklein: here to help: NOBODY benefits from an absurdly low min wage. When THAT many people have ZERO extra funds to toss around the economy flounders.

And when people have a lot of money to 'throw around', prices go up, and the corporations make more money.

Yes, that's what's known as a healthy economy.


So, the rich (company owners) get richer. That's your master plan?

And it works so long as we can regulate and tax appropriately to keep from a winner take all scenario.

Ah, so that's the secret- not only make companies pay twice as much payroll, but also tax them more, too.
 
2013-10-25 08:17:51 PM  
I'm a poor (but somewhat educated guy with a bscs) and if you give me $49,700, I'll turn it into a million or more!
 
2013-10-25 08:28:39 PM  

Ablejack: WhyKnot: People get frustrated at teachers because they work roughly 20% less (12 weeks off compared to 2 weeks off) on average that the typical American employee, yet demand a salary comparable
to said typical American employee.
That is why people have issues with teachers.

Oh so kinda like Americans hate athletes, judges, pilots, psychologists and librarians. I see. No real reason. Professors also have very similar schedules, make more money and don't really suffer from that frustrated jealousy.


You examples are bad and you should feel bad.

Other than athletes, the rest of those professions work normal schedules.
 
2013-10-25 08:42:19 PM  

Ablejack: WhyKnot: Ablejack: Why is it more important to prevent the poor from type-2 diabetes than the rich? With your reasoning we should allow no treats or sugars etc. for anyone. This is only about having control vs. human dignity, plus a dose of punishment for the poor.

Because the poor aren't buying it with their own money!
The government should not be buying people sugar snacks and soda instead of rice and milk.

Yes they are. When the government issues a check to you, it is your own money. At least that's how it has always been. Just like when you get paid, that money is yours, doesn't matter who signed off on it. Besides, the government spends tons of money on snack foods and sugars that we all eat. Basically you have just agreed with me that it's only a control thing. People tend to think that the money they paid in taxes still somehow belongs to them personally. It doesn't. It is spent by policies written by Politicians that we all elect. The woman with three kids that treats them to ice cream Friday night after she gets home from work isn't blowing your money at all. She is adding to the local economy much more than the corporate welfare dollars to the oil and banking industry, to say nothing of the big chunk of taxes spent on the military.


Ha. I love that you equate my pay check to a welfare recipient getting his/her welfare check. My company gets the benefit of my labor...what does the government get from giving people money to sit around?

Oh, it stimulates the economy...them why doesn't everyone get money? Welfare isn't "stimulate" the economy money, it is don't starve to death money...it is don't rob your neighbor to buy bread money...along those lines, yes, we absolutely should regulate what foods can be bought with goverent dollars. Sorry if little Johnny can't have twinkles in his lunch because his family doesn't make enough to afford it, at least little Johnny has food in his stomach that is healthy.

But shiat, let's keep letting little Johnny's mom fill him up with sugar and unhealthy food...it isn't like studies have shown proper nuitrition helps with brain development that could help Johnny break the cycle of poverty.

The government ties strings to money all the time, what this tax credit, do xyz....I fail to see how it would be abusive to say, you want money so you don't starve? Fine, but you can only buy these certain types of food. Nah, it is 'their' money.
 
2013-10-26 12:32:23 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


Thirty years ago I worked for a retail concern.  We had an opening for an assistant manager for one of our stores and a young woman applied for the job.  When we told her what it paid, she just laughed and left. Her unemployment benefits were more than that job paid and I'm sorry to say were more than the manager (me) was paid.  We were in Alabama and she was from Massachusetts. I'm sure she paid a great deal more in taxes for benefits like that, than I did, but it was a rude awakening for me..
 
2013-10-26 08:28:32 AM  

Ablejack: Oh so kinda like Americans hate athletes, judges, pilots, psychologists and librarians. I see. No real reason. Professors also have very similar schedules, make more money and don't really suffer from that frustrated jealousy.



I don't watch any professional sports due to the retarded pay they get.  Judges work normal schedules other than a shorter Friday, pilots work a normal schedule full year schedule, psychologists.... I mean really I've never seen one that doesn't work a normal schedule, and librarians are the same unless you mean the ones at the schools then yes they get the worst hate because they don't teach and yet they are on the same pay scale as teachers and all they have to do is hand out a few books a day.
 
2013-10-26 11:03:21 AM  

fredklein: Well, if it's 'good' to pay them a little more,then it'll be 'great' to pay them a Lot more. No?? Just think of all that extra money floating around in the economy. And, of course, ignore the fact that companies will go out of business if they need to pay that much for floor-sweepers and burger-makers. Or at least raise their prices by an equivalent amount, thus causing the exact same problem we have now.


Thus proving (if we didn't already know that you are insufferable troll) that you know absolutely nothing about economics or how businesses run.

Hint... the price of goods don't double if you double your employees wages. There are MANY other factors involved in final price. The studies are out there. If McD's doubled all their employees wages (from the bottom right up to the top) they would only have to jack the price of a Big Mac about 15-20 cents to offset the costs. Also now a heck of a lot more people can afford to buy more Big Macs which increases profits.

As far as paying people what the job is worth... well those same min wage jobs were worth far more 20-30 years ago when factoring in inflation. About $14-15 to be precise. That is what is being asked for. It is not an extravagant wage. It is a measly pittance just like it was 30 years ago. The current wages are approaching third world wages when you compare cost of living between the US and those countries.

The ONLY argument that is valid from your standpoint is "If people are willing to work for it then that is what the job is worth" which is not only cruel it is highly irresponsible. Economies and societies crumble due to crap like this.

Take your race to the bottom crap and shove it up your ass. The hilarious part is YOU are not immune from the effects of such policies. You may be alright now but it will creep up to whatever station you have in life. The only people this doesn't hurt in the long run (well until no one has any money to spend on the companies crap) are the shareholders and owners.

You are trying to destroy not only America's but the entire world's economy with this crap. Stop it.
 
2013-10-26 12:29:41 PM  

here to help: fredklein: Well, if it's 'good' to pay them a little more,then it'll be 'great' to pay them a Lot more. No?? Just think of all that extra money floating around in the economy. And, of course, ignore the fact that companies will go out of business if they need to pay that much for floor-sweepers and burger-makers. Or at least raise their prices by an equivalent amount, thus causing the exact same problem we have now.

Thus proving (if we didn't already know that you are insufferable troll) that you know absolutely nothing about economics or how businesses run.

Hint... the price of goods don't double if you double your employees wages. There are MANY other factors involved in final price. The studies are out there. If McD's doubled all their employees wages (from the bottom right up to the top) they would only have to jack the price of a Big Mac about 15-20 cents to offset the costs.


..thus proving that YOU know absolutely nothing about economics or how businesses run.

Businesses price things as high as possible, but so that people can still afford them. If people have twice as much money, then businesses will charge twice as much. It has nothing to do with 'offsetting the costs'- it has to do with making more profit.

The ONLY argument that is valid from your standpoint is "If people are willing to work for it then that is what the job is worth" which is not only cruel it is highly irresponsible. Economies and societies crumble due to crap like this.

So, you admit it's valid. Yet you claim it is "cruel". Well I have a response for that- Life Sucks. Life is not always fair. Get over it.

Take your race to the bottom crap and shove it up your ass. The hilarious part is YOU are not immune from the effects of such policies. You may be alright now but it will creep up to whatever station you have in life. The only people this doesn't hurt in the long run (well until no one has any money to spend on the companies crap) are the shareholders and owners.

And we wouldn't want the people who actually own the businesses, who had the original idea, who put their hard work and sweat into the business, to profit, would we? Nah- let's pay the burger flippers lots and lots instead, thus ensuring that they never have a reason to educate themselves or move up in the world. That way we'll have an ever-present underclass we can exploit at will (as long as we bullshiat them about how well we're paying them). Right?
 
2013-10-26 01:21:02 PM  
So your only justification is "rich people good, poor people bad, burn it all because I'm a dick".

Are you a nihilist? That would be the only rational explanation for holding those ridiculous views.
 
2013-10-26 01:46:48 PM  

here to help: So your only justification is "rich people good, poor people bad, burn it all because I'm a dick".

Are you a nihilist? That would be the only rational explanation for holding those ridiculous views.


Or, you know, that those 'views' are all straw.

You don't 'help' a person by giving them stuff (or, in this case, forcing other people to give them stuff.) Yes, it feels good to 'make a difference', but that immediate emotional surge blinds you to the actual, long-term, effects. Give a man a fish, he'll expect another tomorrow. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime. Unless he's too lazy to learn, in which case he'll starve, and good riddance.

Your plan amounts to giving people money that they don't deserve and haven't earned. That creates stagnation, as people who would have gone on to better (ie: higher paying) jobs ... don't.
 
2013-10-26 02:05:31 PM  

fredklein: Your plan amounts to giving people money that they don't deserve and haven't earned. That creates stagnation, as people who would have gone on to better (ie: higher paying) jobs ... don't.


So even people that work don't deserve money. That's pretty bootstrappy of ya. I guess instead of getting food when you spend money on groceries you should just get a kick in the teeth too, right?

In fact everyone should just sign over everything they own to Mitt Romney. They should have been born richer.

Dildo.
 
2013-10-26 02:51:26 PM  

here to help: fredklein: Your plan amounts to giving people money that they don't deserve and haven't earned. That creates stagnation, as people who would have gone on to better (ie: higher paying) jobs ... don't.

So even people that work don't deserve money.


Um, what?

Of course people who work deserve money. (Or, to be more precise, they deserve to be compensated for their work, which is usually done with money.) The issue is HOW MUCH money. If you have a very simple job, one that anyone can do (flipping burgers), then, because of that very fact, your job is worth less than if it was a highly specialized job that very few people can do.

Dildo.

You don't need to sign your posts.
 
2013-10-26 03:04:15 PM  

fredklein: You don't 'help' a person by giving them stuff (or, in this case, forcing other people to give them stuff.)


We'll just file you under 'sociopathic asshole', then.
 
2013-10-26 04:02:20 PM  

fredklein: Um, what?

Of course people who work deserve money. (Or, to be more precise, they deserve to be compensated for their work, which is usually done with money.) The issue is HOW MUCH money. If you have a very simple job, one that anyone can do (flipping burgers), then, because of that very fact, your job is worth less than if it was a highly specialized job that very few people can do.



The current minimum wage is becoming a negative income. People need to travel to work, if they have young children childcare must be paid for, they need to pay for foodstuffs that are quick and/or portable which is more expensive than being able to spend time preparing more cost effective meals, they need to spend money on appropriate work attire, etc.

There are costs associated with being a working person. So who pays for that? The government? If the min wage keeps stagnating while cost of living/inflation increases then you are effectively asking people to work for NOTHING or soon enough LOSING money to go to work.

fredklein: You don't need to sign your posts


Are you 12?
 
2013-10-26 06:54:04 PM  

here to help: The current minimum wage is becoming a negative income. People need to travel to work

Live near where you work, and walk. Carpool. Take the bus instead of driving a gas-guzzling car.

if they have young children childcare must be paid for

One parent stay home? Kids stay with grandma? One of the jobs you could take is being the person who takes care of the neighbors kids while they go to work (do it in your house, and that takes care of "traveling to work", too!)

they need to pay for foodstuffs that are quick and/or portable which is more expensive than being able to spend time preparing more cost effective meals

There are ways to take food with you, even if it isn't "quick and/or portable".

they need to spend money on appropriate work attire, etc.

There are places to get decent clothes. And a pair of pants or a shirt will last for quite a while, if you take care of it. Certainly long enough to save up enough to buy another.

There are costs associated with being a working person. So who pays for that?

Um... the worker. I mean, *I* pay for all that, and I'm a worker.

If the min wage keeps stagnating while cost of living/inflation increases then you are effectively asking people to work for NOTHING or soon enough LOSING money to go to work.

If you can't afford to live, then you need to adjust HOW you live. For instance, I cannot afford to buy a brand-new car every 6 months... so I don't. I can't afford to move to a palatial estate instead of my tiny apartment... so I don't. I cannot afford to buy the newest iPhone, or flashy sneakers, or other bling and crap... so I don't.

 
2013-10-26 06:55:52 PM  
fredklein:
Darn fark ate my tags:

here to help: The current minimum wage is becoming a negative income. People need to travel to work

Live near where you work, and walk. Carpool. Take the bus instead of driving a gas-guzzling car.

if they have young children childcare must be paid for

One parent stay home? Kids stay with grandma? One of the jobs you could take is being the person who takes care of the neighbors kids while they go to work (do it in your house, and that takes care of "traveling to work", too!)

they need to pay for foodstuffs that are quick and/or portable which is more expensive than being able to spend time preparing more cost effective meals


There are ways to take food with you, even if it isn't "quick and/or portable".

they need to spend money on appropriate work attire, etc.

There are places to get decent clothes. And a pair of pants or a shirt will last for quite a while, if you take care of it. Certainly long enough to save up enough to buy another.

There are costs associated with being a working person. So who pays for that?

Um... the worker. I mean, *I* pay for all that, and I'm a worker.

If the min wage keeps stagnating while cost of living/inflation increases then you are effectively asking people to work for NOTHING or soon enough LOSING money to go to work.


If you can't afford to live, then you need to adjust HOW you live. For instance, I cannot afford to buy a brand-new car every 6 months... so I don't. I can't afford to move to a palatial estate instead of my tiny apartment... so I don't. I cannot afford to buy the newest iPhone, or flashy sneakers, or other bling and crap... so I don't.
 
2013-10-26 07:19:46 PM  

fredklein: fredklein:
Darn fark ate my tags:

here to help: The current minimum wage is becoming a negative income. People need to travel to work

Live near where you work, and walk. Carpool. Take the bus instead of driving a gas-guzzling car.

if they have young children childcare must be paid for

One parent stay home? Kids stay with grandma? One of the jobs you could take is being the person who takes care of the neighbors kids while they go to work (do it in your house, and that takes care of "traveling to work", too!)

they need to pay for foodstuffs that are quick and/or portable which is more expensive than being able to spend time preparing more cost effective meals

There are ways to take food with you, even if it isn't "quick and/or portable".

they need to spend money on appropriate work attire, etc.

There are places to get decent clothes. And a pair of pants or a shirt will last for quite a while, if you take care of it. Certainly long enough to save up enough to buy another.

There are costs associated with being a working person. So who pays for that?

Um... the worker. I mean, *I* pay for all that, and I'm a worker.

If the min wage keeps stagnating while cost of living/inflation increases then you are effectively asking people to work for NOTHING or soon enough LOSING money to go to work.

If you can't afford to live, then you need to adjust HOW you live. For instance, I cannot afford to buy a brand-new car every 6 months... so I don't. I can't afford to move to a palatial estate instead of my tiny apartment... so I don't. I cannot afford to buy the newest iPhone, or flashy sneakers, or other bling and crap... so I don't.


Many of those things are impossibilities for many people.

Here's a much easier solution.

RAISE THE F*CKING MINIMUM WAGE!!!
 
2013-10-26 08:01:34 PM  

here to help: Here's a much easier solution.

RAISE THE F*CKING MINIMUM WAGE!!!



It's already been explained why this won't work.
 
Displayed 276 of 276 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report