Dependence on Food Stamps

[bill]

is that the minimum wage, bill?  4thousand dollars a week?

I had no idea.

Well then I guess that the food stamps and aid we are all paying Walmarts employees for them (because, hey, why not?  Its just tax payer money, right?) need to seriously hike up to match your projected amount of 16k per month, and almost 200k per employee in order to have the basic requirements for life.

You really ARE a socialist, Bill!

After all, why should Walmart pay for their own employees?

Do you ever actually think these things through?  Or do you just here Steve Doocey or one of the other unpolished turds on that network say things and then just repeat them out loud.  You know, through your mouth?

It works differently when you type things out and other people can parse them.

According to the Milton Dare school of the economy it would be good for the economy. Which made-up ivy league university is that taught?

[BridgeTroll]

anything to avoid addressing the central issue eh, bridge troll?

You are better at it than I am...

[BridgeTroll]

The wage scale is what the market bears. 

Free market fundamentalism tends to fail on a simple point. Define "market". Now tell me where you see that outside of a few narrow examples like a flea market.

Means testing for wages is unlikely to ever happen...

This is a straw man; no one has said anything about "means testing".

Well they did... and that is what I have been refering to...

Re: Dependence on Food Stamps

« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2014, 05:15:52 PM »


Everyone who works full time should be paid a livable wage regardless & not have to rely on food stamps/other social programs just to get by. Especially at places like Wal-Mart who's founders have more wealth than the bottom 40% of americans combined.

Since we've let the corporate pigs rape & pillage our cities, destroy mom & pops, make ghost towns out of main streets all across the nation, etc, then the least they could do is pay. I mean if we're gonna get fucked anyway at least let us have the money to buy lipstick.

[finehoe]

I know you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll play along.

In public policy, a living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic. This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, and minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education and childcare although in many cases education, saving for retirement, and less commonly legal fees and insurance, or taking care of a sick or elderly family member are not included. It also does not allow for debt repayment of any kind. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define "living wage" as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four. This is two adults working full-time with one child age 9 and another of 4.

The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

Living wage is defined by the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community. The particular amount that must be earned per hour to meet these needs varies depending on location. In 1990 the first living wage campaigns were launched by community initiatives in the US addressing increasing poverty faced by workers and their families. They argued that employee, employer, and the community win with a living wage. Employees would be more willing to work, helping the employer reduce worker turnover ratio and it would help the community when the citizens have enough to have a decent life.

Poverty threshold is the income necessary for a household to be able to consume a low cost, nutritious diet and purchase non-food necessities in a given country. Poverty lines and living wages are measured differently. Poverty lines are measured by household units and living wage is based on individual workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

[BridgeTroll]

I know you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll play along.

In public policy, a living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic. This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, and minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education and childcare although in many cases education, saving for retirement, and less commonly legal fees and insurance, or taking care of a sick or elderly family member are not included. It also does not allow for debt repayment of any kind. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define "living wage" as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four. This is two adults working full-time with one child age 9 and another of 4.

The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

Living wage is defined by the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community. The particular amount that must be earned per hour to meet these needs varies depending on location. In 1990 the first living wage campaigns were launched by community initiatives in the US addressing increasing poverty faced by workers and their families. They argued that employee, employer, and the community win with a living wage. Employees would be more willing to work, helping the employer reduce worker turnover ratio and it would help the community when the citizens have enough to have a decent life.

Poverty threshold is the income necessary for a household to be able to consume a low cost, nutritious diet and purchase non-food necessities in a given country. Poverty lines and living wages are measured differently. Poverty lines are measured by household units and living wage is based on individual workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

Impact[edit]

Research shows that minimum wage laws and living wage legislation impact poverty differently: evidence demonstrates that living wage legislation reduces poverty.[26] The parties impacted by minimum wage laws and living wage laws differ as living wage legislation generally applies to a more limited sector of the population. It is estimated that workers who qualify for the living wage legislation are currently between 1-2% of the bottom quartile of wage distribution.[26] One must consider that the impact of living wage laws depends heavily on the degree to which these ordinances are enforced.

"There is evidence that living wage ordinances modestly reduce the poverty rates in locations in which these ordinances are enacted.However, there is no evidence that state minimum wage laws do so."[27] With minimum wage laws, the increased costs are passed to employers who in turn charge consumers higher prices if possible. Faced with higher prices, consumers purchase fewer goods thus leading to a redistribution among low wage workers. Those impacted by living wage legislation are typically low wage employees who are selling services to the local governments[citation needed

[finehoe]

It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

[BridgeTroll]

It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

[ChriswUfGator]

It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that? This isn't like the unemployed, where it's a backstop to maintain social order (people don't just starve quietly, scenarios that unstable generally result in revolution, there are sound societal reasons for welfare...but I digress). This is allowing large private employers to misuse government welfare programs to boost their bottom line. How and why is that okay?

[finehoe]

What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

[fsquid]

It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

let's say that we legislate that, do you think Wal-Mart keeps the same headcount they have today or lowers it?  Also, do you think they leave their prices the same and eat the lowering of their margins with the higher labor costs?

[BridgeTroll]

What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Why limit it to "large corporations"?  Small and medium are paying more?  I work for a small local business and I guarantee the big guys are paying more than the small guys.  I am happy though as it appears the discussion has moved off the Walmart boogieman and on to "large corporations".

Chris... you are an employer correct?  I assume you researched your wage structure... you know how much you can and should pay each position.  I assume it is based on local pay scale standards?  Suppose one of your employees told you they could no longer live on what you are paying.  I suppose you could pay more... but would you?  What about the other employees?  Would they get more too?  How would that affect your business model?

[bill]

is that the minimum wage, bill?  4thousand dollars a week?

I had no idea.

Well then I guess that the food stamps and aid we are all paying Walmarts employees for them (because, hey, why not?  Its just tax payer money, right?) need to seriously hike up to match your projected amount of 16k per month, and almost 200k per employee in order to have the basic requirements for life.

You really ARE a socialist, Bill!

After all, why should Walmart pay for their own employees?

Do you ever actually think these things through?  Or do you just here Steve Doocey or one of the other unpolished turds on that network say things and then just repeat them out loud.  You know, through your mouth?

It works differently when you type things out and other people can parse them.

According to the Milton Dare school of the economy it would be good for the economy. Which made-up ivy league university is that taught?

What on earth are you talking about bill?  Is this just an attempt to make a conversation so blisteringly dumb that no one will respond anymore?

Now why is it that you believe in paying Walmarts employees for Walmart?

So yes you made it up. thanks for clarifying. 

[southsider1015]

What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Because none of us are economists.  I agree that this idea sounds bad, but your method for solving the problem isn't the way to do it.  Frankly, we have to much unskilled labor in our country.  The birth rate for the uneducated and poor is exceeding the birth rate of the educated and middle and upper classes.  Why do we subsidize single mothers? Why dont we subsidize families who succeed in raising successful and productive children?

[bill]

What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Because none of us are economists.  I agree that this idea sounds bad, but your method for solving the problem isn't the way to do it.  Frankly, we have to much unskilled labor in our country.  The birth rate for the uneducated and poor is exceeding the birth rate of the educated and middle and upper classes.  Why do we subsidize single mothers? Why dont we subsidize families who succeed in raising successful and productive children?

good point, because democrats would never win another election.

[GoldenEst82]

The issue is that those who pay taxes to their government for services*, are seeing that money go to corporations who do not have the moral mandate for public welfare that a government does.
Corporations only have to look out for their shareholders.
They already killed US manufacturing, using their influence to make the trade agreements that have allowed our multinationals to take their manufacturing overseas- driving wages down worldwide. Jobs go to the lowest bid labor. Period.

As an example: Most of our clothes are made in Bangladesh, for about four cents an hour, those jobs are never coming back to the US, with our "stupid" living wages. We one had HUGE garment and textile manufacturing here- but, you know- those job creators! Creating all those jobs! Just not here.

Remember, Wall Street is doing great!
These companies LOVE free money, and they hire LOTS of people!
Like Lobbyists, and Lawyers and Consultants, who find ways around our laws, and havens for their money, so that YOU pay more taxes on your WORK income, than they pay on the both the interest on the money in their stock portfolios, and the principal.

It kills me, how exploited this system is, and how readily people buy into the "evil poor" propaganda.


*services like
Roads, infrastructure, defense, social services