Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire, rose to fame by promoting a ballot initiative that essentially eliminated bilingual education in California. He went on to become publisher of The American Conservative, a libertarian-leaning magazine.
But after decades in the conservative movement, Mr. Unz is pursuing a goal that has stymied liberals: raising the minimum wage. He plans to pour his own money into a ballot measure to increase the minimum wage in California to $10 an hour in 2015 and $12 in 2016, which would make it by far the highest in the nation. Currently, it is $8 — 75 cents higher than the federal minimum.
Using what he sees as conservative principles to advocate a policy long championed by the left, Mr. Unz argues that significantly raising the minimum wage would help curb government spending on social services, strengthen the economy and make more jobs attractive to American-born workers.
"There are so many very low-wage workers, and we pay for huge social welfare programs for them," he said in an interview. "This would save something on the order of tens of billions of dollars. Doesn't it make more sense for employers to pay their workers than the government?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/us/conservative-leads-effort-to-raise-minimum-wage-in-california.html
100% agree.
This should accelerate the progress of automation.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on November 27, 2013, 10:59:01 AMThis should accelerate the progress of automation.
Those are my thoughts as well. Where you now see 16 manned checkout lanes and 4 self-checkout scanners, you will soon see 4 manned checkout lanes and 16 self-checkout scanners. Great for the four cashiers that get to keep their jobs, not so great for the twelve that are let go.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on November 27, 2013, 10:59:01 AM
This should accelerate the progress of automation.
Agreed. However a better way to accelerate the progress toward automation... is to quit churning out woefully educated and motivated students at the high school level. Why automate when we have such an abundance of cheap labor. Apparently we do not have enough cheap labor as we import a couple million extra evry year.
At this pace we may never see the level of automation we all want...
With all the good, well researched, highly thought out properly planned proposals of raising minimum wage, I have yet to see one say how they can solve the bottom line issue of cost of living. Raising the minimum wage in the past is good for the first two or three months but then the costs rise as well so they're back in the same boat.
So far, all of the wage increases have just quieted the masses for a few years until the complaints get loud again. And, in reality, nothing really improved, it just gave the impression of improvement.
Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.
Quote from: finehoe on November 27, 2013, 08:13:00 PM
Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.
Or... they are simply utilizing an over supply of very cheap laborors...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 27, 2013, 08:57:32 PM
Quote from: finehoe on November 27, 2013, 08:13:00 PM
Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.
Or... they are simply utilizing an over supply of very cheap laborors...
A supply that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government subsidies we're all paying for, let's not forget that part.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 09:33:30 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 27, 2013, 08:57:32 PM
Quote from: finehoe on November 27, 2013, 08:13:00 PM
Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.
Or... they are simply utilizing an over supply of very cheap laborors...
A supply that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government subsidies we're all paying for, let's not forget that part.
Not sure what government subsidies have to do with 30% of high school aged children incapable of even finishing high school... but I am thankful there are companies willing to pay people a wage who are unqualified to do much else. Importing more will just add to the surplus of cheap labor.
Well it's a dodge, Stephen. This is the most mind-boggling issue, to me anyway, upon which conservatives always wind up falling on their sword. They don't like welfare queens, unless its walmart. I've never figured it out myself, and this is easy to solve, either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.
Without the subsidies their underpaid workers mostly wouldn't have the ability to take the job at the wage offered, this is just an artificially deflated market because these private companies are intentionally banking on public assistance programs to increase already-healthy profits.
Sorry Stephen... but even blue collar manufacturing jobs require the ability to graduate High school. I have to commend you though for admitting the labor unions played a large part in forcing some manufacturing overseas...
But hey... if 30% (50% in some demographics) virtually unemployable is good for you... Blaming me and NAFTA is certainly easier...
By the way, I read the part you added about deregulation of trade and 100% agree with you, we need the reinstitution of tariffs, and the unwinding of nafta, etc. It's been disastrous for this country. Won't happen though, until you get the money out of the political system. Which the Supreme Court says you can't do. So I guess we're kind of fucked, from a long-term perspective. We're Rome, watching the weakening of an empire due to corruption, which for whatever reason we've mislabeled as capitalism. I like capitalism pretty damn well. I don't like the "everything's for sale" government we've developed since the 1980s. The finale won't happen in our lifetimes, but it's definitely starting.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 10:29:57 AM
Well it's a dodge, Stephen. This is the most mind-boggling issue, to me anyway, upon which conservatives always wind up falling on their sword. They don't like welfare queens, unless its walmart. I've never figured it out myself, and this is easy to solve, either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.
Without the subsidies their underpaid workers mostly wouldn't have the ability to take the job at the wage offered, this is just an artificially deflated market because these private companies are intentionally banking on public assistance programs to increase already-healthy profits.
Chris... they are paid the going rate! You mentioned you employees are fairly compensated... I am sure they are. But... you probably do not pay substantially more that other lawyers in the area or income of respective firms. You pay the going rate... no more... no less.
Suppose the government told you you must now pay 1/3 more than you are currently paying them. How would this affect your business?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2013, 10:33:12 AM
Sorry Stephen... but even blue collar manufacturing jobs require the ability to graduate High school. I have to commend you though for admitting the labor unions played a large part in forcing some manufacturing overseas...
But hey... if 30% (50% in some demographics) virtually unemployable is good for you... Blaming me and NAFTA is certainly easier...
Well in fairness NAFTA's a disaster, it needs to go. Globalization only works as promised if the trade partners are already at relative wealth parity. Which isn't what happens in the real world, companies run around exploiting underdeveloped economies at the expense of the wealthier nation's domestic economy. It's really global wealth redistribution, with us on the losing end. I don't care what happens in Indonesia, China, or Mexico, why are we allowing our manufacturing base to be wholesaled off to developing countries? There are public policy considerations in all of this, it's not just about a dollar, the cost is enormous to us as a society.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2013, 10:38:56 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 10:29:57 AM
Well it's a dodge, Stephen. This is the most mind-boggling issue, to me anyway, upon which conservatives always wind up falling on their sword. They don't like welfare queens, unless its walmart. I've never figured it out myself, and this is easy to solve, either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.
Without the subsidies their underpaid workers mostly wouldn't have the ability to take the job at the wage offered, this is just an artificially deflated market because these private companies are intentionally banking on public assistance programs to increase already-healthy profits.
Chris... they are paid the going rate! You mentioned you employees are fairly compensated... I am sure they are. But... you probably do not pay substantially more that other lawyers in the area or income of respective firms. You pay the going rate... no more... no less.
Suppose the government told you you must now pay 1/3 more than you are currently paying them. How would this affect your business?
But the problem is that the going rate is artificially low because you have private enterprises who have figured out how to game public assistance programs to subsidize their labor costs at the expense of the taxpayers. The market isn't functioning properly because you have this 800lb gorilla that nobody wants to address.
QuoteMcDonald's workers should have no problem qualifying for government programs like food stamps and heating assistance.
The hamburger chain pretty much admits that in a call made by a worker to "McResource"-- a helpline set up for its workers.
The advocacy group Low Pay is not Ok recorded a phone call made to the helpline by one McDonald's worker Nancy Salgado. The group circulated an edited video of the recording. McDonald's said the video was "not an accurate portrayal of the resource line" because it was "very obviously" edited.
However, CNNMoney reviewed the full recording of the call.
Salgado, who has worked at a Chicago McDonald's for 10 years and makes $8.25 an hour, asked the McResource representative a number of questions related to getting assistance to pay for her heating bill, her groceries and her sister's medical expenses. Salgado told the representative that she was recording the call for her sister.
The helpline operator never asked Salgado how much she made per hour, and how many hours per week she worked beyond the fact that she was a full-time employee. But she said that Salgado "definitely should be able to qualify for both food stamps and heating assistance."
The representative then pointed her toward a number of resources in Chicago, such as food pantries and a program that would help cover some of her heating bill. She said she would email her specific phone numbers and programs.
The operator also explained that the McResource line is available to help McDonald's workers who need help navigating the process of getting public assistance. The helpline's phone number is posted in fliers at many McDonald's locations.
McDonald's said in a statement that "the McResource Line is intended to be a free, confidential service to help employees and their families get answers to a variety of questions or provide resources on a variety of topics including housing, child care, transportation, grief, elder care, education and more."
But the line is not open to all McDonald's workers. Franchise owners need to pay for the service in order for their employees to use it.
Salgado's franchise owner in Chicago, for example, had not paid for the service, even though she called the helpline.
The operator said that none of the Chicago franchises had paid for it.
"We can be a good program," the operator said. "We can do a lot of the leg work that takes a lot of the stresses off of you making a million phone calls trying to find services."
News of the McResource line comes a week after a report found that more than half of fast food workers have to rely on public assistance programs since their wages aren't enough to support them.
The report estimated that this public aid carries a $7 billion price tag for taxpayers each year.
A separate report by the National Employment Law Project released on the same day showed that McDonald's alone was responsible for $1.2 billion of that $7 billion alone.
The recorded phone call supports what the reports found and also the claims of hundreds of fast food workers that their pay is too low, they don't get scheduled for enough hours and they get no benefits. Since last November, workers have organized protests around the country, including New York City, Los Angeles, Memphis and Detroit calling for a minimum wage of $15 an hour and the right to organize without retaliation.
Earlier this year, McDonald's came under fire for releasing a budget planning guide for its employees. The sample budget it provided didn't account for either food or gasoline, a big expense for low income workers. The budget also left room for an income from a second job, which many called an admission by the fast food giant that its workers can't live on wages from one job at McDonald's.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/23/news/companies/mcdonalds-help-line-workers/
This is not ok.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 10:50:56 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2013, 10:38:56 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 10:29:57 AM
Well it's a dodge, Stephen. This is the most mind-boggling issue, to me anyway, upon which conservatives always wind up falling on their sword. They don't like welfare queens, unless its walmart. I've never figured it out myself, and this is easy to solve, either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.
Without the subsidies their underpaid workers mostly wouldn't have the ability to take the job at the wage offered, this is just an artificially deflated market because these private companies are intentionally banking on public assistance programs to increase already-healthy profits.
Chris... they are paid the going rate! You mentioned you employees are fairly compensated... I am sure they are. But... you probably do not pay substantially more that other lawyers in the area or income of respective firms. You pay the going rate... no more... no less.
Suppose the government told you you must now pay 1/3 more than you are currently paying them. How would this affect your business?
But the problem is that the going rate is artificially low because you have private enterprises who have figured out how to game public assistance programs to subsidize their labor costs at the expense of the taxpayers. The market isn't functioning properly because you have this 800lb gorilla that nobody wants to address.
Here is another 800lb gorilla... it also comes with a sacred cow. The going rate for unskilled labor is so low because of the abundance of unskilled labor available. That would be the other 800lb gorilla... the sacred cow would be the apparent desire to import even more unskilled labor into the country.
Quote from: finehoe on November 27, 2013, 08:13:00 PM
Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.
.
I seriously doubt if any of these unskilled/unemployed.have take the same undergraduate economics course you have. .
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2013, 11:03:19 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 10:50:56 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2013, 10:38:56 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 10:29:57 AM
Well it's a dodge, Stephen. This is the most mind-boggling issue, to me anyway, upon which conservatives always wind up falling on their sword. They don't like welfare queens, unless its walmart. I've never figured it out myself, and this is easy to solve, either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.
Without the subsidies their underpaid workers mostly wouldn't have the ability to take the job at the wage offered, this is just an artificially deflated market because these private companies are intentionally banking on public assistance programs to increase already-healthy profits.
Chris... they are paid the going rate! You mentioned you employees are fairly compensated... I am sure they are. But... you probably do not pay substantially more that other lawyers in the area or income of respective firms. You pay the going rate... no more... no less.
Suppose the government told you you must now pay 1/3 more than you are currently paying them. How would this affect your business?
But the problem is that the going rate is artificially low because you have private enterprises who have figured out how to game public assistance programs to subsidize their labor costs at the expense of the taxpayers. The market isn't functioning properly because you have this 800lb gorilla that nobody wants to address.
Here is another 800lb gorilla... it also comes with a sacred cow. The going rate for unskilled labor is so low because of the abundance of unskilled labor available. That would be the other 800lb gorilla... the sacred cow would be the apparent desire to import even more unskilled labor into the country.
The natural result, after our corporately-controlled government let their jobs be sent off to underdeveloped countries. What else did we expect? And yes as a dem I'll still admit Clinton was the biggest offender.
These free trade policies don't work.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2013, 11:03:19 AM
... the sacred cow would be the apparent desire to import even more unskilled labor into the country.
Luckily, that aspect seems to no longer be an issue: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 28, 2013, 10:29:57 AM
either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.
You've brought this issue up before Chris, so once again I'll post my same response from another thread:
Quote from: JayBird on November 22, 2013, 06:55:19 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many people would you say work AND have to claim food stamps? The number of ppl in Florida who recieve ACCESS Benefits (Cash Assistance/Food Stamps/Medicaid) hovers around 3.4 million Sunshine State residents (about 1.8M households is the avg for the state because even 3 day old Betsy Lou is considered a resident but obviously cannot earn an income.) This is the breakdown of how you recieve food stamps.
1 person in household will recieve $200/month.
2 = $367
3 = $526
4 = $668
5 = $793
6 = $952
7 = $1052
8 = $1202
Each additional person +$150
Now that is only for those that have no (zero)(nil)(notta)income. As soon as you recieve a paycheck, the entire pay for the household is multiplied by 0.3 and that number is deducted from eligible benefits. For example, Joe Blow works at walmart 20 hours a week for 7.35 an hour. After two weeks he gets a check stub that shows he earned $294 before FICA and everyone took their piece. The big computers for the state talk to the IRS and determine that means he will gross $637 a month (294x26/12). Applying the algorithm to Joe Blows benefits, (637x0.3-200) his benefits for food purchases just dropped to $8.91 per month. Yes, not even a full $10.
Medicaid costs are astronomical but vary case by case and cash assistance in Florida is available only through WIC program for moms and moms to be and a select few that collect SSI due to discrepancy in Florida's wording of the law.
So those "masses" that work and need to collect benefits that your tax dollars paid for, well in the case of Joe Blow if he worked just two more hours a week stocking camping supplies at walmart he would be making more income than the job plus those benefits could provide him with.
Secondly, as for the raising of minimum wage or living wage, I fully agree it should be because it makes logical sense .... On paper. The problem is, as has happened repeatedly in the years since Clinton adminstration got the increases bumping up ... When people have more money, retailers raise their prices. Now they say it is because they have to increase their workers pay, which I guess is true. But therein lies the catch-22, how can you give a living wage increase across the board without companies raising their prices the same amount? An increase of $500 a month doesn't help me if my electric, cable, grocery, rent, and auto insurance all went up by $100 a month.
Now, that just deals strictly with food stamps but with the exception of Medicare the scales are comparable for cash assistance. Utilities assistance is harder because there is no set formulas. It is pretty much up to the administering nonprofit to define and determine need. Those whom are receiving benefits plus a paycheck are receiving a very small portion. So is the problem really McDonalds paying low wages, or is it the person who only wants to work 4 hours a week so they are still eligible for unemployment benefits?
You're not taking dependents into account in those calculations, which changes things substantially.
Umm yes that is with dependents. The number is how people in household and the income used is total household income. Do you have any direct experience with ACCESS or the food stamp program, or just what you hear/read/think up?
Quote
1 person in household will recieve $200/month.
2 = $367
3 = $526
4 = $668
5 = $793
6 = $952
7 = $1052
8 = $1202
Each additional person +$150
Quote from: JayBird on November 30, 2013, 02:22:50 PM
Umm yes that is with dependents. The number is how people in household and the income used is total household income. Do you have any direct experience with ACCESS or the food stamp program, or just what you hear/read/think up?
Quote
1 person in household will recieve $200/month.
2 = $367
3 = $526
4 = $668
5 = $793
6 = $952
7 = $1052
8 = $1202
Each additional person +$150
Your supposed joe blow example used a household size of one to determine he'd get $8 in benefits. How does attacking the credibility of anyone who questions you (while providing little to no evidence of your own) change that you've taken the best case scenario for your argument and are attempting to apply it generally?
My proof was right there, and it is also easily found information. Now I'm sorry I didn't use every possible example to explain it, the example was intended to show a simple situation so it could be more easily understood. And the only reason you took that as an attack was because I called out the fact that you personally couldn't back up your statements where I could. I'm sorry I offended your pride, that truly wasn't the intention. I was just trying to assign where your thinking was coming from, and you've answered. You're not alone, the only reason I know is because I deal with it and have for over 10 years through various nonprofits. It just shows the underlying issue that most people are misinformed and the reason no one tries to educate the general public is that it is a huge pot of money that the state legislators move around elsewhere.
Simply stated, it isn't a simple fix. A true fix would be to revamp the entire way the money is distributed. Attacking the employers of major corporations is only a small, infinitesimal really, portion of the actual money being paid out.
So for you, let's take Suzie with 6 children and she is the only income earner in the household because her husband has issues. That puts a total of 8 people in the fold, which is benefits of $1202 a month. Now let's assume her and Joe Blow work the same shifts. So her benefits at end of month becomes $1,010. Considerably more, but still $126 per person. I am one person and spend probably more than twice that a month. In this case, if she worked a full time job at minimum wage she would still be eligible ... But she has her and 7 other mouths to feed. If her husband got a job working 20 hours at min wage per week, their total benefits would zero out on her 34th hour of work. So, with a full time job and husband a part time job, both at lowest pay, would make them ineligible for benefits.
See why the system is geared to make the employee NOT want to work full time? So blaming the greedy corporations, though they aren't innocent, isn't nearly going to solve the issue.
Quote from: JayBird on November 30, 2013, 08:50:46 PM
My proof was right there, and it is also easily found information. Now I'm sorry I didn't use every possible example to explain it, the example was intended to show a simple situation so it could be more easily understood. And the only reason you took that as an attack was because I called out the fact that you personally couldn't back up your statements where I could. I'm sorry I offended your pride, that truly wasn't the intention. I was just trying to assign where your thinking was coming from, and you've answered. You're not alone, the only reason I know is because I deal with it and have for over 10 years through various nonprofits. It just shows the underlying issue that most people are misinformed and the reason no one tries to educate the general public is that it is a huge pot of money that the state legislators move around elsewhere.
Simply stated, it isn't a simple fix. A true fix would be to revamp the entire way the money is distributed. Attacking the employers of major corporations is only a small, infinitesimal really, portion of the actual money being paid out.
The problem isn't that you didn't use more than one example. As we both know, my objection was that you used the most beneficial possible example for your argument and then attempted to generalize it, which is a logical fallacy and doesn't prove the truth of the matter you're arguing. In an effort to distract from that deficiency, you resorted to ad hominem and have since claimed I'm "misinformed." I'm not sure who you're used to having discussions with, but really, if you want to have one with me then at least make a legitimate effort.
Quote from: JayBird on November 30, 2013, 09:04:08 PM
So for you, let's take Suzie with 6 children and she is the only income earner in the household because her husband has issues. That puts a total of 8 people in the fold, which is benefits of $1202 a month. Now let's assume her and Joe Blow work the same shifts. So her benefits at end of month becomes $1,010. Considerably more, but still $126 per person. I am one person and spend probably more than twice that a month. In this case, if she worked a full time job at minimum wage she would still be eligible ... But she has her and 7 other mouths to feed. If her husband got a job working 20 hours at min wage per week, their total benefits would zero out on her 34th hour of work. So, with a full time job and husband a part time job, both at lowest pay, would make them ineligible for benefits.
See why the system is geared to make the employee NOT want to work full time? So blaming the greedy corporations, though they aren't innocent, isn't nearly going to solve the issue.
Ah, well here we go then. Considering that a full 76% of SNAP recipients have dependents, can you spot the flaw in your prior argument, or do we need to keep on with how I'm uninformed?
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx
http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 30, 2013, 11:26:30 PM
Quote from: JayBird on November 30, 2013, 09:04:08 PM
So for you, let's take Suzie with 6 children and she is the only income earner in the household because her husband has issues. That puts a total of 8 people in the fold, which is benefits of $1202 a month. Now let's assume her and Joe Blow work the same shifts. So her benefits at end of month becomes $1,010. Considerably more, but still $126 per person. I am one person and spend probably more than twice that a month. In this case, if she worked a full time job at minimum wage she would still be eligible ... But she has her and 7 other mouths to feed. If her husband got a job working 20 hours at min wage per week, their total benefits would zero out on her 34th hour of work. So, with a full time job and husband a part time job, both at lowest pay, would make them ineligible for benefits.
See why the system is geared to make the employee NOT want to work full time? So blaming the greedy corporations, though they aren't innocent, isn't nearly going to solve the issue.
Ah, well here we go then. Considering that a full 76% of SNAP recipients have dependents, can you spot the flaw in your prior argument, or do we need to keep on with how I'm uninformed?
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx
http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker
It was tongue in cheek, considering that in the state of Florida 84% of those claiming dependents claim no more than 3.
Thanks for the laughs, but you have proven to me the extent of your knowledge and though it is fun and easy to just mimick what you hear from others, the facts do not support. The point I was trying to make, and obviously failed at, was that working people are not eligible to benefits if they work a regular schedule. As states in my example for you, Suzie's family of 8 zeroes out at 54 hours. (Though I know only 38% of benefit recipients are single, less than 1% have more than 6 dependents so I figure that sort of equalizes them.)Which means 1 parent working full time, 1 part time and they get nothing. And this of course is using minimum wage figures so that is expanding the pie as much as it can.
Now you can continue to argue for the other side, that's fine. I am at 134 East Church Street every Friday (7:30am to 6ish) in the Catholic Charities offices. Come by and I'll show you, directly how many of those receiving benefits have a job. And you can also meet and talk to some who refuse to get a job, because then their benefits will stop. So, as I've said before, though the "working poor needing good stamps to survive" makes a great sound byte, and technically isn't false it also isn't fully evident of the truth. As a matter of fact, the bigger problem we have is getting people over that hump between benefits stopping and them learning financial mgmt so they can afford to feed their family without assistance.
Isnt the bigger question... why is a full grown adult... still at an entry level minimum wage job? Some seem to contend that those jobs are all that are available. Most of us are fully aware that is NOT the case. Why does that 30% stuck in these types of situations... mirror the failure rate of our high schools?
Quote from: JayBird on December 01, 2013, 07:54:49 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 30, 2013, 11:26:30 PM
Quote from: JayBird on November 30, 2013, 09:04:08 PM
So for you, let's take Suzie with 6 children and she is the only income earner in the household because her husband has issues. That puts a total of 8 people in the fold, which is benefits of $1202 a month. Now let's assume her and Joe Blow work the same shifts. So her benefits at end of month becomes $1,010. Considerably more, but still $126 per person. I am one person and spend probably more than twice that a month. In this case, if she worked a full time job at minimum wage she would still be eligible ... But she has her and 7 other mouths to feed. If her husband got a job working 20 hours at min wage per week, their total benefits would zero out on her 34th hour of work. So, with a full time job and husband a part time job, both at lowest pay, would make them ineligible for benefits.
See why the system is geared to make the employee NOT want to work full time? So blaming the greedy corporations, though they aren't innocent, isn't nearly going to solve the issue.
Ah, well here we go then. Considering that a full 76% of SNAP recipients have dependents, can you spot the flaw in your prior argument, or do we need to keep on with how I'm uninformed?
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx
http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker
It was tongue in cheek, considering that in the state of Florida 84% of those claiming dependents claim no more than 3.
Thanks for the laughs, but you have proven to me the extent of your knowledge and though it is fun and easy to just mimick what you hear from others, the facts do not support. The point I was trying to make, and obviously failed at, was that working people are not eligible to benefits if they work a regular schedule. As states in my example for you, Suzie's family of 8 zeroes out at 54 hours. (Though I know only 38% of benefit recipients are single, less than 1% have more than 6 dependents so I figure that sort of equalizes them.)Which means 1 parent working full time, 1 part time and they get nothing. And this of course is using minimum wage figures so that is expanding the pie as much as it can.
Now you can continue to argue for the other side, that's fine. I am at 134 East Church Street every Friday (7:30am to 6ish) in the Catholic Charities offices. Come by and I'll show you, directly how many of those receiving benefits have a job. And you can also meet and talk to some who refuse to get a job, because then their benefits will stop. So, as I've said before, though the "working poor needing good stamps to survive" makes a great sound byte, and technically isn't false it also isn't fully evident of the truth. As a matter of fact, the bigger problem we have is getting people over that hump between benefits stopping and them learning financial mgmt so they can afford to feed their family without assistance.
So wait a second, let me get this straight...
You're the one whose position turned out to be correct only 24% of the time, and yet as between the two of us, you're still convinced that I'm the one who's uninformed?
Amazing.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
Isnt the bigger question... why is a full grown adult... still at an entry level minimum wage job? Some seem to contend that those jobs are all that are available. Most of us are fully aware that is NOT the case. Why does that 30% stuck in these types of situations... mirror the failure rate of our high schools?
I'm not sure that excuses Walmart and McDonald's paying dickensian wages while shifting the burden to the taxpayers by setting up 1-800 lines telling their employees to go apply for SNAP and medicaid. This is an intentional strategy being used to maximize private profits at public expense.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 01, 2013, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
Isnt the bigger question... why is a full grown adult... still at an entry level minimum wage job? Some seem to contend that those jobs are all that are available. Most of us are fully aware that is NOT the case. Why does that 30% stuck in these types of situations... mirror the failure rate of our high schools?
I'm not sure that excuses Walmart and McDonald's paying dickensian wages while shifting the burden to the taxpayers by setting up 1-800 lines telling their employees to go apply for SNAP and medicaid. This is an intentional strategy being used to maximize private profits at public expense.
lol... please do not leave out Starbucks...